Seriously now, what's the point of wasting ammo like that...

Seriously now, what's the point of wasting ammo like that? Why can't just one guy fire a round into his head and be done with it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ybp-EZe7PoQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's a team building exercise

>head

some of the guns had blanks in them but the soldiers weren't allowed to know who did or did not have a blank thus letting those with a conscience and guilt assume that they infact had the blank allowing them to assume they infact did not kill the man, also with multiple shooters guilt is further negated because it is spread between them all.

First, this picture is a mock execution meant to intimidate the victim. Second, only half of them at the most would be issued live rounds. Culpability reasons

It's a formality.
/this

What makes you say it's a mock execution?

Reverse image search comes up with it being the execution of a French Resistance fighter named Georges Blind

It comes from the time when guns weren't reliable enough for one single shooter to take someone down.

People will tell you it's a psychological defense mechanism or whatever but this is false, executions on the field like in that pic weren't so formal, the men would not have been given any blanks, they all had live rounds and they knew it, and they really did not care. These are professional soldiers, they were expected to kill without issue when necessary, the only time the executions with blanks and such were ever used were by "irregular" firing squads such as during executions of tried criminals in the USA by state authorities, who would generally not have the discipline to just shoot someone outright.

It was just a lingering practice from a time before you could trust one man with one bullet to take out another man reliably, because he'd be using a shitty musket or firing cap gun or even early cartridge rifle that could have failed at any moment and fucked up the execution, which looks like absolute shit and nobody ever wanted to happen. Killing was not expected to be a problem for soldiers like in your pic.

>German soldiers
>killing civilians

Germans due to their high-tech equipment have never done any collateral damage in any world war, it's all jewish propaganda for sure.

>genocide practice
Comedy gold. Did they shoot anybody that didn't fire at the man.

Georges Blind was set up for a mock execution and later sent to a concentration camp

Go fuck yourself. It takes five seconds to write George Blinds name into google and a little reading comprehension to see what happened to him.

He knew this show was bullshit. His real punishment was coming.

Oh, ok. The only article I could find on his actual story was in French and "no parlez vous"

this is a myth. anyone who has shot a gun with both blanks and real ones knows that the feeling is completely different.

>These are professional soldiers, they were expected to kill without issue when necessary

I was under the impression most were draftees, not having undergone nearly as much and as rigourous a training as say, a modern US soldier.

Maybe the style of execution. Shouldn't the Kar98 be reliable enough with 1-2 shots to the heart? I don't think the nazis executed many people in this fashion during ww2.

>It comes from the time when guns weren't reliable enough for one single shooter to take someone down.
Because a pistol into someones temple at point blank range won't kill them.

That sort of thing is communist. fascists love their firing squads. More fun for everyone.

Oh yes not debating that just pointing out the entire argument of guns are not reliable enough for a single shooter to kill someone with is total bullshit.
>Seriously now, what's the point of wasting ammo like that?
Also its a single round from nine people so nine bullets, and bullets are much cheaper then imprisoning someone and having to pay people to guard and take care of prisoners. Also it sends a message to others that do the same crime that what they are doing is not tolerated.

Should have used the Guillotine more then they did. Save the ammunition for the front.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ybp-EZe7PoQ

Forgot to add

>British actor Christopher Lee, who was 17 at the time, witnessed this event.

Jesus this guy was a fucking history magnet.

Who do you think got a higher kill count in the military, him or Tolkien?

it won't if it misfires. we're not talking about accuracy but overall unreliability of early firearms.

>1940s
>Early Firearms
I am also fairly certain the K98 was not prone to misfiring by any stretch of the imagination.

Lee was killing men up close and personal. He could confirm who he was killing

Tolkien was tossed into conventional battle where the combat is much more vague.

I want to say Lee, because he was involved in post war Nazi hunting as well, but Tolkien had to deal with mass assaults, Stormtroopers and potentially going over-the-top.

He was joking you idiot.

Bullets are cheap, making several people do it makes it more likely that they don't disobey orders.

>It comes from the time when guns weren't reliable enough for one single shooter to take someone down.

Executions, even those of civilians (which resistance fighters arguably aren't) are not "collateral damage". "Collateral damage" means damage inflicted unintentionally in the process of inflicting intentional damage on others.

Anonymity of the executioner and mitigation of guilt, in addition to bolstering of solidarity.

Worth a few bullets.

>implying they aren't all equally guilty.

BUT WHO WAS REAL BULLET :DDD

It's about ceremony and tradition, symbolizing that one side stands opposite and unified against the condemned. They didn't give a shit about "wasting" a couple extra rounds if they're willing to have a firing squad execution.

It's not about muh feefees either. They purposely picked men who wouldn't feel guilty about shooting. Not to mention they're condemned criminals who "deserve" it from their point of view.

If you do it as a group, then no single man feels responsible. Makes the feeling of guilt easier to suppress afterwards.

>rounds are hard to find in a war
>a single round makes the difference on the battlefield
>a soldier behind the lines will need that round
>logistics will not keep up with ~5 rounds in a firing squad, especially in a standardised army