This video was made possible thanks to everyone on the Simple History Patreon: www.patreon.com/simplehistory

Army vet here. In short, it's just about survival, to go home and see your loved ones. If you don't shoot to kill/incapacitate, the enemy will do it to you. It's nothing personal, it's just business

I remember what I was told during basic training "Killing is a option but our task as a soldier is to neutralize danger enemy pose, be it by killing, making them surrender or forcing them to retreat."

We're trained with muscle memory to shoot human shaped targets it just becomes second nature

You should talk about "the dai hong dan incident". Where in 2007, a north Korean cargo ship got hijacked by Somalian pirates. And a US warship came to the rescue after hearing their distress call. Fortunately, the NK sailors took the ship back after killing 2 of the baddies, and capturing 5 more. 3 of the sailors needed medical treatment, where US Navy medical personnel helped them. When the news spread around NK, they made a VERY RARE statement, PRAISING the US navy for answering the distress call for the their sailors. Worth talking about it.

When I was in law enforcement class we were told Military shoots to kill and police shoot to stop aggression. The professor admitted both are shoot to kill but cops can't say that.

My grandfather told me he was shooting many russian soldiers in WW2, because he knew: if he did not kill them, they would have killed him. Later he felt sorry for what he did, because he knew that they were all just young guys like himself and he was not able to forget about their screams before they died. He drowned his trauma in alcohol until he passed away with 73.

The soldiers who don't are taken out by the ones who do.

3 time Iraq vet here. Even with my Advanced Rifle Marksmanship and Close Quarters Marksmanship certifications when I trained under the Presidents Hundred, we never once were taught to shoot to wound. It was always shoot to hit. Shooting a moving target is hard enough from a stationary and supported position, let alone from a high stress unsupported standing position. We aim for the biggest area of the body, the torso, because it has the highest likelihood success not to mention all the vital organs.

I reckon they mostly shoot to stop the enemy from fighting (not killing), but with how chaotic battles can be, then it’s the matter of survival

What my uncle told me about war. War is a ugly scary nightmare . No other way to describe it.

1:44 Man surrenders Man stabs Man has mental trauma

I was in the USMC, I was an infantry machine gunner 0331. I carried a 240G machine gun and had been taught to hit the people in their chest to lower stomach and thighs. Those are all kill shots, I learned that during my time in Iraq.

It’s honestly sad KZfaq demonetizes this stuff like seriously this shot has to be remembered and not changed to sound more colourful or one sided

"This is War. Survival is your responsibility," - Hunk

With how the war in Ukraine shows, killing still seems to be the norm in wars and soldiers eventually become accustomed to it (if they survive)

My father was a WW2 veteran and I remember him telling me that oneday he was left alone to guard their outpost. His commanding officer told him to fire upon ANY vehicle that approached, without waiting to see who it was. He was given orders to shoot to kill basically. A vehicle later approached from some distance and Dad's finger started to squeeze the trigger. But he couldn't bring himself to shoot, not knowing who it was. Just as well too because it turned out to be the army doctor.

To get to an answer to this question I think it's also important to take into consideration the fact of PTSD. Interestingly enough PTSD is not a new phenomenon. There are written scriptures of ancient army soldiers who had very similar symptoms of nowadays soldiers. I think for the majority of humanity it is hard to take another human life, since we are creatures who feel empathy To overcome this problem I think soldiers need to have at least one of the following conditions: (there are certainly more than the once I mention but I think those are on the top Dehumanization = Get the soldier (or even the whole population) to think about the enemy not as a fellow human being but a threat/problem/disease that needs to be exterminated Personal motivation = To give soldiers an incentive to kill the enemy soldiers in order to protect one's friends/families/hometown/country/freedom or something one holds dear Actual vengeance = Losing empathy through actual events for example the conquest of the soviet union by the germans and their brutality on captured soldiers and the population and later calling for vengeance Under these conditions I actually do believe that even the average Joe would be able to shoot to kill. The problem is once the realisation kicks in that the enemy someone shot was actually a fellow human and not responsible for ones misary or not worth killing over an intrinsic value. And that can even happen during combat itself: If a soldier sees an enemy soldier's face up close frightened stiff, or a picture of a family in a dead soldiers pocket so something that recreates that human connection. A soldier can repress that sentiment maybe in the heat of battle when the adrenaline is pumping and basic training kicks in. But once everything settles down (The timing can vary a lot) the remorse/PTSD/questioning one's action come to themost part of soldiers. Conclusion: I personally believe that given the right conditions soldiers do actually shoot to kill. But humans aren't made to kill one another. And that's why a lot of soldiers will struggle with their actions resulting in PTSD/depression/remorse or general struggle with something. So that's my thesis maybe I enlightened someone / changed their perspective or gave someone help to find an answer to the given question maybe I just talked gibberish if you feel like leaving a response to my commantary fell free to do so I am open to everything and everyone if you made it this far I thank your for reading :D

“Friendly fire is not tolerated.” Viktor Reznov: The flag may be different, but the methods are the same. Theodore Roosevelt: You should be ashamed of your military honor!

I have been watching you for 6 years now, love the videos! Keep up the great work!

Kyle didnt earn the monicker "american sniper" lol he was known as The Devil of Ramadi

I’ve always wondered what you looked like. Nice video, your Channel is very entertaining, and educational.

thank you for making these history videos!

What an intriguing video, thank you Simple History. I find this explanation about the human nature in war fascinating.

"War's tragedy is that it uses man's best to do man's worst." - Harry Emerson Fosdick

They shoot to hug and spread love

Excellent work

I'm glad I've never had to go to war

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." ~Plato~

I would highly, HIGHLY, suggest reading the book “On Killing” by Dave Grossman.

I love ur videos!

Summary: yes

The German soldier shooting the French one after he hesitated to bayonet stab him is wild.

Marine Corps vet here - There is no ambiguity about shooting to kill in the Marine Corps. From day one, you’re DIs make it clear that the purpose of a Marine is to kill, and that every round you fire must be fired with the intent to kill your adversary, hence the saying “One Shot, One Kill” in the words of my drill instructor, “Killing the other guy is how you go home alive.” Unlike the Army where a refrigeration mechanic would never expect to see combat and therefore boot camp is much more generalized, every Marine, regardless of their MOS expects to see combat at some point in their career, and to that end, the entirety of Marine Corps basic training and the subsequent one month of Marine Combat Training is laser focused on training you to kill the enemy. Soldiers may not shoot to kill, but Marines shoot to kill with every shot.

good vid keep it up

How do you think they kill? By eating the enemy?

“Sniping’s a good job mate.”

2:16 Bolt action Garand

Glad to see your face while you talk about your channel. Makes this channel much more believable in a world where so many channels are created by AI and copy-paste material with low quality.

You didn't mention the Korean War my Dad was in that one and the stories he told me about the enemy were unbelievable. The Chinese were experts at firing mortars. He would hear them coming down miles away and landing right into the Americans foxholes. The were precise and deadly accurate. Many of his friends were killed from that weapons explosions. He himself was injured on Triangle Hill shrapnel got his leg from and enemy cannon. He was there for over two years and was sent home after his injuries.

My dad spent 25 years in the army and he always told me the idea is to shoot to incapacitate the enemy, not necessarily to kill. It takes two soldiers or so to help a wounded man, so that's removes 3 from the fight.

I read that rhodesian soldiers were trained to fire at cover in a firefight it was very effective as often in a combat situation it can be hard to tell iniatially where you are been fired from.

I mean one of the most popular military sayings in history is "Shoot anything that moves."

Surely there must also be a component of how painfull the death you inflict is in the decision whether to shoot to kill

I apologize I can't donate as I'm struggling myself, but I very much appreciate the content and you've got my morale support.

Rambo said it best, “when you’re pushed, killing is as easy as breathing.”

I like your work😃

9:49 I think I've seen some cases where civilian targets are added to train your instinct to identify who not to fire on as well.

There are instances where soldiers don't know exactly where an enemy is so they kinda pepper an area with fire. There is covering fire to keep enemies down or in cover. Not every trigger pull is intended to kill. I imagine some conscripted soldiers wouldn't want to kill. I bet there are plenty who don't want to kill, but when your life is on the line it's probably not something on the top of mind.

In the Army we trained to shoot center mass ( the torso ) because it's much easier to hit a large target than a small one. A common phrase was aim small miss small. Now with that being said, if you are aiming at a persons chest, what are the odds you hit a major artery or organ?

They’re supposed to, especially with modern training methods, but whether they follow through is another matter. Dave Grossman’s On Killing is an illuminating book on the subject.

I’m a big fan of simple history I was wondering when will you make video of ground attack aircraft from the first world war till now I’ve seen the tank video I really enjoyed watching I think it would be interesting to see the ground attack aircraft as well

The white ghost had zero issues shooting to kill for what he believed in, granted he wasn't up front and personal but still.

On the subject of hesitation in battle: "When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that a moment before was your best friend's face, you'll know what to do." --Patton

Good video.

There is no satisfaction in killing another human being. But, in a war, it's all about survival and a soldier will do whatever it takes to preserve his life and also to protect his comrades.

War is stupid! We're not meant to kill our fellow man!

Interesting stuff and comments. I think about ancient wars with far more hand to hand combat. Brutal.

The double space before really fascinates me😅

When comparing WWII Germans, 1931-1945 Japanese made even the Waffen SS and Red Army look like saints. They ABSOLUTLY reveled in violence and sadism to the point of ecstasy. They viewed all foreigners and especially a surrendering soldier(s) as a non-entity, let alone a living being. Like a kid in a candy store.

Already saw the Lindybeige video on this topic 😂

Soldiers kill not because they hate whats in front But because they love whats behind them

what else would they shoot for? shoot to tickle?

Also a combat vet here. Yes.

YES!

Of course, because...*checks notes*... war. It's not like it's a tickle fight.

People generally don't kill people without extreme cause, even in wars. People die by accident in wars, accidents happen a lot when you send a lot of bullets in the general direction that other bullets are coming from, you can have shooting accidents outside of war too, just ask Marvin. But for the most part militaries have been trying to get soldiers to actually shoot to kill, or maime, for the better part of a few centuries to little availe. That said we have found two things that work, the first is to use successful propoganda to dehumanize the enemy, this is largely why the veterans of WW2 dont regret much of what they did over there, it helped that our enemies were doing unhuman things. The other is to train people to shoot before they have time to think about what they're shooting. On the whole though both come with extreme consequences; we're seeing the highest rates of post combat PTSD, ever, and it appears that previous generations didn't escape it either. So yeah maybe getting thousands of teenagers and young adults to actually kill people isn't the most sustainable thing we couldve done as a nation.

I’m going home safe, whatever else happens, happens.

On the pacific front, a WW2 soldier's qualms against shooting to kill would have been changed the moment they realized the ruthlessness of the Japanese

People say what they will do in a situation like this but honestly and frankly they do not know unless they have been in the situation. They can speculate what their reaction will be but never know 100% until they are in the situation and rounds are flying past you. I know what my reaction can and will be it is a hard thing to know that lives inside of a person and can and will change them forever. It is something I would not wish upon anyone to have to know.

I have had the pleasure of speaking to egyptian SOF operators, when they were fighting insurgents in north sinai. They shot to kill, they despised their enemy and viewed him as less than human and loved what was behind them. The insurgents infront of them had not only been the cause of the death of loved ones, but also brothers in arms and the de-stabilization of the arab world. My own father wasn't SOF nor was he infantry for that matter but he was a doctor, he was dispatched with SOF in the southern mountains and north sinai, he hates that he never killed any insurgents. His war with the idea of islamic extremism continued long after his service ended, to this day as a matter of fact. Another weird phenomenon i noticed is that our soliders never really get PTSD from killing the enemy, as the enemy is always somebody terrible

As a pog vet that spent years after the military doing my job as a firefighter on army bases in Iraq, nothing I miss more than the brotherhood and experience of being in that environment with like.minded bros. I've been through dozens and dozens of idf attacks like on may 4 in taji Iraq and I miss the simple but fulfilling life I had living and working in a war zone.

Romanticizing your actions during such a stressful time is a safety mechanism for your psyche. Especially in western culture, where we tend to teach a defined moral, black and white instead of the gray, it truly is.

After spending 1999-2016 as a combatant with many combat deployments, I find Grossman's assertions to be an extreme characterization. At least when applied to the modern soldier. I don't disagree that Posturing is a thing and there's a lot more shooting that happens than accurate shooting but there's also an awful lot of dead Iraqis and afghanis 2ith bullet holes in them and I never saw in any substantive way a lack of will and intent to fight.

You are going to aim center mass, especially if something is coming at you quickly. Its all vitals in there. Its why SWAT stacks and breaches the way they do, a barricaded suspect can't get a fix on much and ends up shooting center mass and hopefully hitting the shield (in theory and usually in practice).

You should all wiki "Myth of the clean Wehrmacht"

6:49 I remember reading about colonel Marshall in “Humankind, A Hopeful History” by Rutger Bregman 3 years ago. I’ve looked into some of the claims of that book over the years and a lot of it leaves crucial information out. So if you read the book, take it with a grain of salt.

HEYO!!!! Props to your sound guy! @ 2:16 the sound for the m1 grands firing is very much like the sniper rifle from team fortress 2. I enjoyed this immensely.

Lt col dave Grossman also talked about how a large percentage of combat soldiers that didn't partake in combat would directly support thos who would Running ammo, re supplying medical equip, relaying orders, directing fire. Stuff like that

Interesting video. Anecdotally, those I have talked to from Iraq were never sure if they were the ones who actually pulled the trigger as it was usually a group effort to make people stop moving. There were more than a few who were psychopaths and wanted to kill. The majority were just in a situation and didn't really care if the enemy was dead or disabled, so long as they were not able/actively shooting at them. I had listened to a rather amusing story of an American trying to get a prisoner count from the local militia, followed by a back and forth exchange of expected numbers, routinely getting smaller each time the local militia leader came back.

The logic of not wanting to kill in ww1 as personally my politics teacher shared kinda checks out especially when looking at the trolly problem

i like how it showed Kyle cocking the bolt on an M110 semi auto rifle

Dude your voice is awesome!

A decent amount of kills are just shooting into bushes or areas where enemies are meant to be, despite not seeing them face to face. Although if face to face it's a matter of kill or be killed. You might have trauma but at least you're alive.

Center mass and whatever happens …happens

Read the book "on killing" by Dave grossman. He references him in the beginning. Did research and interviews on the subject. Fascinating read.

That plug was surreal

Soldiers training for WW1 used circular bulls eye targets for target practice. A lot of soldiers were hesitating when shooting at people. Training for WW2 used human shaped targets and was much more likely to fire at people.

Uh yeah?

Sometimes the commander shut out a different instruction to fight. Like Fire at Will.

can you make story for battle of marawi? or fallen saf 44 in the phillippines thank you

Yes, but no...but yes.

It actually makes more strategic sense to wound rather than kill. A wounded soldier cannot fight, but still needs to be fed, putting strain on the enemy's logistics.

I find it disgusting that youtube demonised(how every its spelt) when your teaching history I've learnt more history from your channel then I ever did ln school

Depends on the situation....

Never been this early before

It also heavily depends on the situation, are you shooting an enemy sleeping in his rack during a trench raid? or are you shooting an enemy bearing down on you with a bayonet at full sprint?

i was a machine gunner. I was either shooting in the general direction of the enemy by pointing my gun based on a map bearing and elevation from a tripod. Or, just shooting shadows that seemed to be moving. But yes, shoot to kill.

this History is Awesome. wait till you on these wars of Valor.

What a stupid question.