If you were in an armed conflict and knew you could get away with it, would you kill a surrendering enemy soldier?

11B
Khandahar province OEF11-12
25th ID, need more or want my dd214?

Haha there are no rules in war

thank you for your service

Only if they're G*rmans or C*lts.

Executing every Nazi and Confederate prisoner would've been an objective net gain for the world.

>killing data
how unprofessional.

The Geneva Conventions where created from the horrors of WW1, im ok with accepting prisoners if it means I dont have to be mustarded gassed and shit.

People that shit on the Geneva conventions really forget how horrific WW1 was.

I wouldn't mainly because I have empathy and don't wish to murder someone

How about no

Wow I bet you skateboard

>le I would kill them if they were nazis cause im so woke xDDDD

>I have zero strategic and tactical wisdom
t. forever enlisted

No. You want people to surrender. The more people surrender, the less people there are pointing guns at you. Killing surrendered soldiers would have a negative effect and result in less people surrendering.

It would also be immoral to kill the person who gives their life in your hands.

If I had any reason to believe they would try something in the meantime, absolutely.

Depends on how psychologically damaged I was.

>kill surrendering troops
>word gets around
>no one wants to surrender anymore as its certain death and will fight to the bitter end instead
Great job

Surrender to yourself then you dixie LARPing edgelord.

Good goy

Can I have have dd214
Will they accept it if I write my name over yours?

If he's a german or russian, then of course
Otherwise no

regardless you are commiting a war crime, and theres no "getting away" from that

You know why the USA wins their wars with so few losses? They make surrendering to them a very preferable prospect. Which is incredibly important.

Your side just has to win the war, dummy

no. employers dont give a shit about veteran status. dd214 is basically useless

Depends on who the person. Yes if it is someone that after the war will still cause trouble, let's say a radical cleric.

Depends on who the surrendering enemy is.
If it was a black/muslim/communist then yes, otherwise probably no.

Are you that guy on /k/ who admitted to jacking off to pregnant Anne Frank porn daily while on deployment?

this guy gets it

yes that was me

nigga how are PoWs even real just say they were franc-tireurs

EDGY
D
G
Y

>high ranking SS-officer?
Yes
>normal Wehrmacht-trooper
Nah

I did

fag

No because the enemy soldiers will only fight harder if they know that they won't make it out alive by surrendering

To refuse surrendering soldiers is just barbaric.

>Le clean Wehrmacht meme

No as i wouldnt want that to happen if roles where reversed.

The Wehrmacht committing war crimes doesn't mean every little soldier and conscript deserved to be shot.

This.
There's too many inbred faggot on this board.

>25th ID
leg

No, unless I know the soldier or saw something he did.
Why the fuck would you kill just for fun? If it's a righteous killing, maybe.

No

It depends

There are too many edgy phaggots on this board.

This is the correct answer

depends on the enemy soldier
honorable enemies like australians or poles? no
dishonorable enemies like kurds or armenians? absolutely
t.turk

Well it depends, on how much a pain in the arse he would be.
If I had to keep an eye on him for the rest of the patrol, or have to take him back. Or have to carry a wounded one back miles.
Also, why shoot him, that's what bayonets are for.

Depends what their race/ideology is

>it depends on how much a pain in the arse he would be
what if you were the pain in his ass ;)

WW1 was also a war between civilized white Europeans.

Not that way inclined. But if you did, you'd have to kill him, afterward. So no complaint.

>the western front was the only front
>the Anglos didn't ship in thousands of poos to make up for their manpower shortage

A couple thousand colonials in a sea of millions doesn't change the basic nature of things. Christ, they're not that uncontrollable

>they're not that uncontrollable
It wasn't the non-whites that had to be checked, it was the Germans that threatened to massacre them unconditionally.

Was the Christmas of 1914 in the trenches the last song sung by white people before they sealed their fate to be bred out of existence?

>falling for union propaganda
>saying it was a good thing
Imagine being both this retarded, and edgy.

>t. captured by the enemy
>he shoots innocent men
no, take them prisoner obviously.

Yes. I'd kill civilians too.

I would kill my superior officer and go home.

>within the proper rules of war
Kek. It's war. There aren't any rules.

"Rules of war" always did seem a bit arbitrary to me. What's the point of a rule you can't enforce?

I wouldn't. What possible reason could I have for doing that?

Nah.

100% this

Yes, of course. I am capable of all sorts of depravity.

What if he's a high ranking Wehrmacht officer?

This. If you just execute POW, it would enrage your enemies and make them fight to death.

>they were all fascist baby killers meme

no but I'd execute lots of faggy civilians lol

Why would I? The fucker can give us intelligence on the enemy, besides he's just some guy who (was) fighting for his country, but knew he couldn't win so he surrendered. Atleast he tried and knew his place as an inferior person from a weak nation.

Yeah but it's another mouth to feed

i'm sure most people would probably do it.

Yeah and he gave us intelligence to help bring the war closer to an end and can be used as propaganda to advance our agenda.

Stop thinking small.

Nobody on this website will believe me but I 100% won't do it and this is not a lie
Im dead serious

The Germans didn't realize this in WWII. They might have had better success if the Red Army knew they could surrender and not be killed. They did the same thing in the west. At the battle of the bulge the Germans were making great progress until they executed a bunch of Americans. Once word got out resistance stiffened greatly.

The whole point of battle is to break morale. If the enemy knows that he will be killed if captured then he will fight harder.

this

No but I’d force him to have a nice cup of tea with me

If they are white then no.

thanks for ur service

dont fight israel's wars next time

>australians

Didn't stop them from gassing each other like vermin

Bro, in our army our officers now and again suggests killing of surrendering opponents and if we agree we lost. It's a test.

Hello the 1850's called and want their morals back

got a problem with Celts ?

Depends on the mood, but generally. Yes.
Snipers, artillerists - without a question.

You want to stay alive - you surrender before the fight even starts. Going full on "hurr durr, seems like I am going to be killed, so I surrender, pls don't shoot" is similar to a fucking serial killer begging for his life and appealing to humanism when facing a death row.

Nah, Wermacht soldiers were pretty ok with killing civvies in Belarus, for example. The same near the Stalingrad.

>Civilian killing faggots
>Vietcong.

Amerilard in this thread.

>They did the same thing in the west. At the battle of the bulge the Germans were making great progress until they executed a bunch of Americans. Once word got out resistance stiffened greatly.
This is false.

>vc dindu nuffin

>Brave Americans napalming shit out of civvies doesn't count because it's democratic napalm

Khruschev was a pussy.

Forget? They don't know anything outside of their mom's basement.

I'm pretty sure terrified soldiers fighting to their deaths and killing your own men before they die instead of surrendering is a bigger waste of resources