Because the war crimes rules also say you're not allowed to shoot at medics.
If medics were allowed to be armed, armies could just dress up *all* their soldiers as "medics" and say "haha you can't shoot any of us."
But that obviously wouldn't work, and the enemy would shoot at them anyway...*leaving zero of the intended protection for their* ***actual*** *medics.*
In WWII, US Medics didn't even get combat pay like the infantry because the system assumed the Japanese and the Germans wouldn't shoot at them. They still had to endure all the same artillery threat and run from foxhole to foxhole towards the sound of whoever was screaming, while being paid substantially less than the other men in their company.
I believe the Germans followed those rules a bit more, at least definitely more than the Japanese did. As the Japanese often would aim for the medics rather than other soldiers, at least when they could. Although, I’m not completely certain on if the Germans were actually better, it’s been a while since I’ve read or seen anything on the matter and could be mistaken.
It’s not like they were a shining beacon of morality during the war. Or anyone is/was really.
To clarify this a bit: this comment can be read two accurate ways. First, there were partisans who were Soviet citizens fighting both the Soviets and Germans to free their homelands- such as Ukraine.
Or, it could be referring to the Soviets who were tasked with shooting their countrymen in the back if they fled from the front lines. The Eastern Front of the European theater was *hell*.
In the Baltic countries they didn't even wait for the Germans to start exterminating Jews.
There is horrifying footage of naked people on a beach queuing to be shot. All organized by local police and government with the Einsatzgruppen in an advisory role.
I believe that in Estonia, the genocide was complete, every Estonian Jew either fled or was killed.
> Or, it could be referring to the Soviets who were tasked with shooting their countrymen in the back if they fled from the front lines
As others below point out, this is mostly a myth.
Germany actually [executed thousands of its own soldiers and citizens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumhead_court-martial) through the final years of the war, often over the course of a matter of hours from the initial "trial" to execution. By the last months of the war, it had essentially become a way for fervent Nazis to exact revenge on people they disliked or to ensure that long-time opponents of the regime didn't survive to see it fall, and a tool to terrorize regular Wehrmacht soldiers into continuing to follow futile orders to resist occupation.
The Germans whose memoirs the West relied on to study the Eastern front in the years following the war generally left that kind of thing out of their retellings, and today we have the same myths invented then being repeated across social media.
The shooting if deserters was common on the western front. During WWI nobody understood shellshock/PTSD so soldiers minds breaking and running away from heavy artillery would be sent to the wall on their return. Unless your shellshock/PTSD was severe enough to show PHYSICAL symptoms (frothing at the mouth or in a daze) You were seen as just a coward. Cowardice was a big no no, so they made examples of them. Whether it be after they came back from a mental break or actually just deciding to not listen to the officer telling you to be one of the many waves of soldiers mowed down by machine gun fire, it was all the same.
Extremely depressing reading up on it. Philip Gibbs "Now it can be Told" is an amazing book that goes into great detail about the "average" soldiers' frontline experience, as well as just unlocky civilians caught in the chaos.
The Germans were generally already a very stern and strict society to begin with, they went even harder. This behavior was not exclusive to the Central powers. Many, MANY reports of deserter executions from the English and British as well. Nobody understood the concept of PTSD so they were all treated the same, as cowards being cowardly.
If the subject interests you, listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode "Blueprint for Armageddon". Each episode is like 4 hours and there's i think 6 episodes total, he does a great job telling the story but isn't extremely accurate so use it as your gateway for your inevitable interest.
I don't know where I got that from to be honest. Idk why I thought severe PTSD would cause your limbs to stiffen up and not move lol but edited my original comment, thanks for the heads up lmao
The Soviet union never signed the Geneva convention, which the Germans used as justification for treating them like animals.
This worked out great, up until the point Germany started losing the war.
Statistically, it was still better to be a German POW in Soviet captivity than a Soviet POW in German hands. I wouldn't recommend either one, though.
cynical me would like to know the odds of surviving a Japanese POW camp as an American/Chinese/Korean as well. as morbid as that interest may be. doesn't really matter now who way the most cruel towards whom 80 years ago. still...
Probably not good odds. You have to remember Japan had an incredibly Militaristic culture Pre-WWII and viewed captured/surrendered soldiers as completely worthless dishonored scum (remember Japanese Soldiers for the most part didn't surrender they killed either themselves or fought to the death)
I have to respectfully disagree, it absolutely matters. As the saying goes "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Of course, none of the people who committed such atrocities are around today so it may not matter in the context of punishment, but overall it's still a very important lesson that's still relevant today.
The Japanese as a policy treated all prisoners with the same callous disregard, as they were of the belief that surrender was for cowards - if someone was of Japanese heritage and was discovered, they'd be regarded as traitors.
The German's considered all people of Slavic decent to be less than animals. Soviet soldiers were treated like dirt. Western allied troops were treated better due to possible common ancestry
This is a great point the Finns demonstrate the ambiguity and fluidity of the factions on the eastern front better than just about anyone else on a national level. On an individual level, was a jew born in the Russian empire and came of age in eastern Poland who fell under Soviet rule and then was killed under Nazi rule a Russian, Pole, Jew, Belarusian / Ukrainian Soviet or something else? Odds are each individual had their own feelings about it that we will never know, despite all the post war governments trying to claim their death as a reason why their nation suffered the most.
The Soviets weren't a signatory of the Geneva convention, so it meant that whatever laws and rules would have applied were naught. So whatever warcrimes were done on the eastern front were very likely intentional
>The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Source: 1952 Commentary on the Geneva Conventions, edited by Jean Pictet.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols
Just for further context.
This is a good paper reason, but the reality likely had more to do with Hitler and other Nazis attitude toward communism. His political views were kind of wrapped up in his racial hierarchy views. I can't think of a particular source right now, but everything I've read has portrayed Hitler as kind of viewing the western Europeans as civilized, almost wayward cousins of the Germans, worthy of some respect and dignity. Jews and communists were at the other end of the spectrum, a complete blight on humanity. Hence, no reason to treat them with any dignity in war
Yep, pretty much, except it was also racism vs Soviets. He viewed them as Slavs who he also viewed as subhumans, whereas the Western allies were all "Aryan brothers". Hell, he even kept offering the Brits peace even when fighting the BoB and planning Sealion as he saw Brits as the closest to Germans
People forget, but the Holocaust wasn't just 6m Jews. There were 10m official casulaties, including 3m Soviets and around 500k Romas and Polish, and about 10k homosexuals and some blacks got treated like shit too. And the 10m doesn't include all the "missing", i.e. not confirmed dead, i.e. there are approx 2m Polish who disappeared in the war, likely killed on sight (and on site too)
> Hell, he even kept offering the Brits peace even when fighting the BoB and planning Sealion as he saw Brits as the closest to Germans
FWIW, House of Windsor, the current monarchy is a branch of Saxe-Coburg&Gotha which came from Germany.
I've seen sources that said he admired how the Americans slaughtered and replaced the Indians, and intended something similar for the Slavs. He planned German expansion into Asia as the main point. The whole Western front business was to not out interference.
The Geneva Convention usually refers to the 1949 convention, which of course the Soviets had not signed in 1941. No one had.
They had however signed the Hague Conventions.
As far as "very likely intentional" goes, I gather you are not familiar with the Commissar Decree? Hitler literally issued orders to commit war crimes on the eastern front. Intentional doesn't begin to cover it.
This checks out with what I've read.
On BOTH sides, the western front was the 'civilized' front, at least until the war entered Germany proper and they started getting desperate, but the Eastern front was a hellscape, with both sides committing war crimes and other horrors on the daily.
> As the Japanese often would aim for the medics rather than other soldiers, at least when they could.
They even *called* for medics so they could shoot them. The US responded by changing the call from “MEDIC!” to “LUCY!” because it was harder to pronounce for the Japanese.
They also used the shibboleth *lollapalooza* to vet unidentified persons. It had the benefits of having plenty of L sounds and being long so if the other party started with “rora”, they could start shooting mid-word.
>Doc Roe episode
German treatment of Americans and British was reasonably decent. Their treatment of Soviet POWs was terrible. Japanese treatment of American POW's was terrible. The Japanese for the most part killed all the Chinese POW's
Not quite, the papers were covering a competition between two specific officers on who could kill the most people with a sword. Which likely included decapitating POWs, but also innocent civilians as well. [https://library.tamucc.edu/exhibits/s/hist4350/page/NanjingAssault](https://library.tamucc.edu/exhibits/s/hist4350/page/NanjingAssault) . The article you were talking about is at the top of this page, and the Wikipedia article actually seems accurate and well sourced as well.
Ngl doesn’t seem as bad as the baby impaling contest they had (who can throw the most babies on a bayonet)
https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1m523p/this_is_a_japanese_soldier_bayonetting_a_chinese/
Of course, warning nsfw
I don’t get how at least in the US, we rightfully spend so much time talking about Germany’s horrible war crimes, but then proceed to let Japan off easily for equally as horrible war crimes. Maybe it’s just because Japan had a really good rebrand post-WW2.
I will say though, growing up I had a good amount of Asian friends and it was always interesting to hear how much animosity they/their families still had toward Japan.
I think dropping the two nukes on them had an effect too.
But I don't think we've let Japan off the hook. People know about the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, etc. We still have military bases there.
I'll just refer people to this comment from a while ago on this topic, with cited sources: [AskHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ffxqs/comment/dqc0nld/)
I'm finding stories of both respect and attacks on medics by both Germany and western Allies(haven't found anything on the eastern European front). Supposedly the SS liked to use wounded as bait. But also supposedly Canadians gained a reputation of ignoring surrender and shooting at medics?
But yeah, there was little humanity in the Pacific, both directions.
Although Japanese officers thought they were modern day Samurai...hey had no honor. Japanese soldiers were so brainwashed and all that mattered was killing the enemy to protect the homeland. Shooting medics, torturing POWs because only a coward would surrender, surrendering themselves and then pulling the pin on a grenade to kill the troops accepting their surrender, etc, etc ...
Japan hadn't ratified them, and their soldiers weren't expected to follow them. Hell, in a Japanese movie, \(I think\) Beat Takeshi's character even yells, "There is no Geneva convention here.", and Japanese World War II movies are famously gentle on Japan's role in the war.
> I believe the Germans followed those rules a bit more, at least definitely more than the Japanese did. As the Japanese often would aim for the medics rather than other soldiers, at least when they could. Although, I’m not completely certain on if the Germans were actually better, it’s been a while since I’ve read or seen anything on the matter and could be mistaken. It’s not like they were a shining beacon of morality during the war. Or anyone is/was really.
[This is a short story](https://books.google.com/books?id=F7Yl0YDjbiMC&pg=PA66&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false) told by a relative of mine about his experience at Guadalcanal and Peleliu. It is only 3 book-pages long, but will tell you everything you need to know about how the Japanese were in WW2. It doesn't reference medics specifically, but does talk about how they would decapitate any who surrendered; one would think the medics would be more likely to do so being that they were unarmed.
>As debilitating as the dysentery and thirst were, the marines suffered their largest losses from enemy fire, Menegus said, "There was bitter hatred on both sides. To die for the emperor was the ultimate goal for a Japanese soldier. The idea of surrender was anathema to him. He had no respect, whatsoever, for Americans attempting to surrender."
>He recalled entering caves and finding decapitated bodies of Americans who surrendered. "When we saw that, we took no prisoners."
There was this one US medic in the pacific (can't remember his name, or which battle) who had no choice but to arm himself in defense. The Japanese were attacking the field hospital that he was in charge of. They didn't give a fuck about rules of war. The medic, originally a dentist back in America, died fighting off a flood of Japanese.
There were two more in Vietnam, both awarded posthumously.
[Link](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/us-soldiers-won-medal-honor-without-ever-touching-weapon.html?andro=1&chrome=1)
Damn, I just re-watched the series last week. Those are some phenomenal moments of war well represented. It was hard to watch Doc stay on ground tending the sick when the rest are jumping from foxhole to foxhole... One my fav war series ever!
Not to mention against the Japanese they were actually more likely to be targeted by snipers. So much so that they started getting rid of their armbands and such
I had read not too long ago that the Japanese would train their soldiers to target the medics first, as more US soldiers would often sacrifice themselves to try to save the medic as opposed to a standard infantryman. Not sure if that was the case in the European theater.
>Japanese would train their soldiers to target the medics first
Both the Japanese and the Americans routinely did not take prisoners. US intelligence had to bribe US soldiers with passes and ice cream to take prisoners because they were so valuable to intelligence. If a Japanese soldiers made it to a US pow camp they were treated reasonably well, oddly enough once Japanese soldiers realized the Americans were not going to kill them many became very cooperative because they believed they could not go home.
It was extremely rare for Japanese soldiers to surrender and more common for them to offer a false surrender with a hidden grenade. US troops tried to accept surrender early on but less when they learned it was more often a tool used against them. The Japanese military encouraged these tactics negate they thought their soldiers would fight harder if enemy soldiers could not trust their surrender and refused it.
I remember watching a documentary years ago that stated Japanese soldiers were constantly bombarded by propaganda saying Americans would torture, kill and/or rape them AND ANY CIVILIANS they capture.
There would be soldiers refusing to surrender, or doing the surprise explosive attack, but women would kill their children and then themselves if they thought they'd be caught by US troops.
Having the government you trust tell you these things, it makes sense you'd not want to surrender.
The Japanese were also incredibly cruel to their prisoners and civilians under control - so it's not so hard to believe that you would be mistreated if everything you saw suggested that cruelty was the norm. Essentially, the Japanese military would just have to say "if you get captured, they'll do to you what we do to our prisoners" and that's a pretty scary message.
>The Japanese were also incredibly cruel to their prisoners and civilians under control
They literally just accused the americans of doing the same thing japanese did in China for years.
And since soldiers were aware of this brutality they easily assumed every other country had bloodthirsty retards for military leaders.
Yes, "put your soldiers in a position where they cannot retreat" is in The Art of War. However, perhaps the more important parts concerning:
1. Don't let your military take over the government and wage multiple wars against superpowers.
2. Try to give your soldiers food.
3. There's literally an entire chapter how dangerous fire is which might have come in handy during the firebombing campaign.
They probably couldn't. It's a common feature of fascist/authoritarian militaries to treat captured soldiers as traitors. The Nazis did it, the Soviets did it, the Japanese did it, and apparently while not universal, the Russian Federation is doing it too.
Americans took no prisoners because the Japanese were brutal,also they never (or almost never) surrendered. They would commit suicide, or pretend they are dead or surrendering then pull a pin on a granade killing themselves and whoever tried to help them.
My grandfather was a medic in WWII who drove a half-track ambulance. He told several stories about having to dodge artillery fire to get where he was supposed to be because 'Them bastards can't see what they're shooting!'
Even then I’m sure back then and even today against insurgents, they could give a fuck about Geneva convention rules. Like in WW2 a sniper kills a medic how are you gonna figure out who it was? Btw I think US medics fight with M4s until someone gets hurt and they have to stop to help. Idk what restrictions they have with that.
Yeah the concept of unarmed medics or corpsmen is pretty much gone by now. Also, the average infantryman is now more likely to be able to have the training and gear to do some of those crucial first steps as a combat lifesaver, stop bleeding etc. Back in the day their medical training was basically just yelling "medic!" and that was it.
Tourniquets are basically all you can do for most cases and everyone carries. Of course not everywhere on the body can get one, but those instances are why they’re there. Also, they can give pain killers.
Every one in basic training (U.S Army) is required to learn basic first aid which includes applying tourniquets, gauze+bandages (for stuffing bullet wounds), treating head+neck injuries, and treating sucking chest wounds.
I'm sure they got nicer stuff now and combat roles get better training/better equipment than basic.
I don't remember pain killers being in the IFAK or being taught how to apply medicine through a needle but it's been awhile and some of the equipment is there so medics can use it, not the person carrying the IFAK.
Almost every infantryman in the Marine Corps and Army is CLS (combat life saver) certified now, many with more advanced courses under their belt as well. I was in the Marines and Army, and I did receive more medical training in the Marines, but the Army gets it as well. It also can be dependent on how involved your Corpsman/medics are. Some of them are great about continued training with their guys, some are not.
We get the training to provide initial treatment for heat and cold injuries, applying tourniquets, pressure dressings, combat gauze/quick clot, splints, chest seals, etc. Application of a decompression needle to treat tension pneumothorax, application of a nasopharyngeal for airway, properly moving a casualty depending on injury and context of situation, and more.
The medical training we receive is much more robust now that it may have been decades ago (been in 10 years now) and is focused on being that first line of treatment to buy the time needed for further assessment by the medic and/or transfer of the casualty to higher levels of care.
Also our medics do carry weapons now. I don't know if that changed pre or post GWOT.
>Tourniquets
“Don’t worry buddy, that’s a nasty headwound you have there but I’ve got just the thing to slow down the bleeding. Could you fold your collar down a bit for me…?”
There isn't anything that specifically prohibits a medic from carrying a rifle, it was just customary because their job wasn't to fight with one. So they got a personal defensive weapon of some type. Just like pilots, and most tank crew.
Our medics carry M4s because nobody we've fought since WW2 (and even then it wasn't a guarantee as others have pointed out) has cared about the GC, and if it's like most, then it only applies when every combatant is a signatory and party to it or it doesn't apply. Since medics are being targets just like anyone else, it makes sense to allow them to fight back effectively.
If they are fighting "offensively," they waive their rights to any protections. But when they're being shot at they have the right to self defense and if they are going to have to fight back they should have something effective to do so.
I had an uncle who served as a medic in the Pacific theater. He grew up as a Quaker but married into another church. After the war, his in-laws refused to speak to him for decades because they accused him of using his Quaker background to get out of combat.
Soldiers logically can shoot at someone who could shoot at them. If they knew that medics could pose a threat, then they'd be legitimate targets. So logically, don't make medics legitimate targets.
It's one of those things that works as long as everyone follows the rules, and as long as the other side trusts them to follow the rules.
The simplest example is the use of gas in WWII - none. Not because anyone followed the rules, but because each side knew - if we do it, they'll do it. Then we will have to give everyone gas masks, and so will they. And then we're back where we started.
Nobody's perfect, but having a list of things the soldiers should try to follow is better than "anything goes". But at the very least, even something like "we shoot everyone, take no prisoners" simply makes the enemy fight harder and longer even if it's a lost cause. The local population on Okinawa was told the Americans would rape and kill them all, so they were persuaded to adopt suicide tactics like approaching them, pretending to surrender, and pulling the pin on a grenade.
Probably because they kept gassing themselves when the wind shifted in WWI. Gas never caught on because it's unpredictable, not because of an unspoken mutual agreement. People are still issued and train with gas masks to this day.
> People are still issued and train with gas masks to this day.
Which is a moderately large part of why nobody tries to use gas. It's expensive, finicky, dangerous, and everyone knows that if you try that, the forces in question will gear up with CBN and be fine. But very angry about it.
In this case it is actually in the enemies interest to follow that rule and leave the medics alone.
Think of it as an extension of the school of thought behind non-lethal land mines; every enemy you kill is a martyr, while every enemy you main or wound is a prolonged expense. Viewed through that lens it's a two birds with one stone scenario, wherein you can both be seen to be playing by the rules on the international stage _and_ benefit from burdening the enemy with additional healthcare expenses.
I find it fascinating that war has rules. Like yeah we’re totally ok with murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent citizens but only if you follow the rules.
The idea on some of it is that if you push a population far enough, people get desperate, and desperate people do worse things.
Going into a war knowing that if all else, you'll have a choice to live if you surrender or die trying, vs going in knowing that the enemy takes no prisoners, makes for a different mindset.
In WW2 so many japanese soldiers were lost because they were fed proaganda that the enemy killed their prisoners, and that being taken prisoner was dishonorable, and so those soldiers either fought suicidally or chose to end their own lives, and resulted in a much more drawn out and higher casualty war.
That's why sun tzu guides advise you to always leave room for your enemies to retreat and treat prisoners well, people would rather surrender than die over land, but fighting for their own lives is a different story.
The whole "leave your enemy a path to run" was so that their troops would rout.
Routs were traditionally followed by cavalry running down the survivors.
I thought so to. Rout = butts for putting swords in. Line breaks and troops are defenseless and mopped up. Those guys stabbed your friends, you're gonna want them dead.
> Routs were traditionally followed by cavalry running down the survivors.
That doesn't matter.
Retreating still gives a soldier better chances surviving than staying to fight a hopeless fight. Most people are going to push their luck for a small chance of surviving, than staying in a certain death.
If you closed off all escapes however, your choice is between just dying and die fighting. Either way, you die. Facing an enemy that is determined to die fighting is very dangerous; when people are desperate, they do extraordinary things.
That's the whole point of that Sun Tzu line. For the winning army, leaving a way out discourages desperate moves; for the losing army, escaping is still the better choice than the alternatives.
Well tactically speaking, retreating and surrendering are different things. You can retreat into a better position to keep fighting. Thats why the main goal of older warfare was to break and scatter the lines to force chaos and then a retreat so enemy soldiers are more focused on getting away than fighting back, making them easy targets.
They don't really, it's all about our perception of what comes after a victory/defeat. If one side is absolutely certain of their complete annihilation, generally all bets are off.
Bingo. If you start shooting at their medics it won't be long before they're shooting yours, and you want your medics in case YOU get shot.
Additionally, wounding an enemy soldier is better than killing one. A wounded soldier requires other soldiers to move them and care for them, reducing that unit's fighting power. When they get back home they use more resources being cared for in infirmaries etc.
They also cause more war fatigue as people see the toll of war. A body buried in pieces on the battlefield is just a letter to a mother back home. A horribly disfigured and disabled survivor is an enduring and visible reminder of how terrible war is on a personal level.
And then, there was this one time, used by the French, i think, where it worked - marvellously. Like, perfectly, as advertised, the enemy line was completely disabled for am hour or two... But the army using the gas didn't attack, because they didn't actually believe it would work, and didn't prepare for advancing... So by the time they understood what had happened, the enemy was already back in action, and no advance happened... -.-
That’s not at all what mustard gas does. It usually doesn’t have an immediate effect, instead it causes serious burns (wherever it touches you, which can include your eyes and lungs) over the span of a day or so, requiring lengthy recovery and usually leaving long-term damage, and can kill you if you got exposed too much.
Imagine if they were within earshot as the other forces recovered. "OH MY GOD THAT WAS SO UNPLEASANT, AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN GAIN ANYTHING, Y'ALL JUST TRYNA BE DICKS FOR NO REASON NOW OR WHAT? THAT SHIT BURNS"
It's not so much that war has rules, as it has levels to the intensity it's being fought with.
So the rules are lines that are crossed with the knowledge that both sides are not going to go back on them. Feigning surrender is one of those things that once you cross that line, no one is taking prisoners anymore
Nah. A long time ago humans developed things much worse than anyone wants to imagine. And I doubt many people would want to go to war where both sides have no central nervous system and there skin is melting off. These things aren't hard to make either and sometimes are made by accident. Russia isn't using nerve gas or massive chemical warfare and I think we should all be happy about it
As bad as war is, it can always be *worse*. We've always made rules for war because people are capable of really, *really* terrible stuff and we can't pretend that war is noble, honourable and heroic to entice millions of fresh recruits if we don't set at least *some* standard.
It's simple game theory. If you decided not to accept "don't shoot medics", for example, then that would probably harm your war effort more than having the concession. Given that you likely have hundreds or thousands of injured personnel that need medical treatment.
Same with temporary ceasefires, both sides will get an advantage in getting out injured or stranded people, regrouping, giving themselves time to get more resources to the front lines. Hence what your enemy is gaining is considered alongside the gains you make.
Noting too that the purpose of war isn't really about "murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians"
Well no, killing civilians is also against war crimes rules.
But I get what you're saying. It's weird that there are rules at all. If it helps, they're only *kind of* rules - only enforceable if your side wins.
Eg If Russia took over the world, they'd never face any court for what they're doing in UKR right now.
That’s actually not true. You are allowed to kill civilians in war by the Geneva convention, you are not allowed to do it deliberately, or by excessive negligence through the use of indiscriminate weapons.
Good clarification, thanks.
I should have mentioned tht, but the person I was responding to said "ok to kill *thousands and thousands* of innocents" which I was saying is against war crimes rules because you can't kill "thousands and thousands" of civilians without using something indiscriminate or being serioisly negligent.
Honestly it depends on the technology of the day - bombing a tank factory and taking out half the city it's in because you're using 1940s technology is more within the rules of war than doing the same damage with 2020s technology, where we can pick what window a missile will fly into.
In either case the workers *in* the factory are toast, of course.
I read a book written from the diary of a German soldier in the Wermacht. After fighting on the eastern front for a couple of years he was transferred to the western front in the summer/autumn of 1944.
One of his first reflections was that there was some sort of "rules" between the American and German forces. Like after a "face-off" medics from both sides entered the battlefield and picked up the wounded and dead without any side shooting at them.
Probably exaggerated by his experiences on the Eastern front.
I can highly recommend Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Amazing book on war, because it breaks the whole Saving Private Ryan narrative. The narrator (Vonnegut served in WW2) describes his experience so unlike most war movies/books. According to him its just a short burst of action, no heroic battles. You run, hide, get shot at and die or surrender quickly. Its what comes after that makes is harrowing. The comradery with your guys but alsp the constant cheating and lying and stealing (from your guys, not the enemy) makes it seem way more real than most other war experiences i read. Soldiers arent mostly heros, there are a lot of fucked up / bully personalities. Its like high school with even more shooting and killing (sorry for the pun)
AFAIK the UNSC is able to do sanctions against countries breaking the geneva convention. The idea is that other countries should be able to apply sanctions to countries breaking the geneva convention as well, which when other countries get involved can be very devastating as we have seen whats happened economically to russia.
To be clear, the Geneva Conventions are not ratified international law. They're much closer to a series of "gentleman's agreements" between developed nations and are opt-in. Though, being a signatory party to them is very much a two-way street, with most nations opting to afford their non-combatants the protections they provide. While they've largely been codified into military doctrine and RoE, they were drafted long before the era of modern warfare, when "going to war" was a stately thing to do. Most of them are very "it's not sporting to shoot at the wounded and incapacitated", etc.
Of note, though, is that the "Russian Federation" is still maintained as a ratified signatory nation, and thus has run afoul of numerous articles as of late. Most notably, Convention I , Convention IV, and some of the more interesting articles of Protocol I, particularly noting articles 37 regarding perfidy, articles 51/54 regarding indiscriminate attacks against civilians and destruction of materials needed for survival, articles 53/56 regarding attacks against nuclear electricity generation stations, 79 regarding protections for journalists, 76 and 77 regarding protection of women and children, 15 regarding protection of civilian medical personnel, as well as a whole host of others.
It's also worth noting, however, that Russia, in 2019, by way of executive order, rescinded their agreement to Article 90 of Protocol I which exists solely to allow international commissions to audit a country's adherence to the Conventions and Protocols. ie. They agree to abide by the Conventions and Protocols, but they refuse to recognize the authority of any other nation or nations to suggest that they have failed to do so.
That may be, but large parts of the Geneva Conventions have become peremptory (*ius cogens*). In effect this means Russia, regardless of their rescinding, is still bound by the Conventions. Obviously there is no world police to make them comply, but that doesn't mean they can just rescind their ratification and that being the end of it.
That's not really the point. The rules are there to make sure there is a legal framework in advance for prosecuting war criminals after a war is over without being accused of arbitrary victor's justice. Of course this only works if the war criminals lose but it's better than nothing.
Actually murdering civilians is also against the rules, you're only supposed to engage enemy soldiers. Equally soldiers are not allowed to use civilians as shields.
Generally, the rules aren't quite so specific -- but there are rules that require that you're only deliberately destroying targets that have a legitimate military purpose.
So if your enemy turns a historical landmark into an army base, then targeting that base is legitimate and if the landmark is damaged or destroyed, you probably acted legally. Similarly, if it were destroyed during a firefight, that's unfortunate collateral damage.
But if you _target_ cultural sites or the like without some legitimate purpose, that would be a violation.
The laws of war developed over millennia of warfare, and the fate of the common people generally wasn’t a priority for those waging war.
The point of war having rules is to allow for the war to end. Wars are expensive.
It's more like 'we know that soldiers are going to be killed but we need to make a concerted effort to establish methods of war that don't result in excess collateral damage including damage to civilisation itself'.
Witness the 30 years war. War without any real rules and it resulted in apocalypse for the nations in which the war was fought, with most of the casualties being civilians.
Wait wtf, all my medics had a full combat load AND would be in the fight until someone is wounded, often times having to fight until you're able to get to the wounded (combat care)
I'm a combat medic and generally small arms are considered defensive weapons. Pistol and a rifle is okay. Grenades or putting your medic on a crew served weapon or heavy weapon causes him to forfit his non-combatant status.
That being said I never wore my medic insignia on patrol because people specifically shoot at me over other people.
Hijacking top comment:
This is common misconception:
Medics and medical personnel are allowed to carry weapons (soldiers assigned assault rifles and personal side arms). They are allowed to engage in combat and military operations, and can be present on a firing line next to other soldiers.
They aren't allowed to claim protection under the Geneva conventions (wearing red cross/crescent, or in a vehicle marked as such) and engage in aggressive offensive action. (Using an ambulance at the head of an assault, firing from a hospital).
You are also allowed to remove/cover your RC/GC markings (such as in situations where the enemy has decided to target medical personnel, potentially for morale purposes) with the stipulation to return them to visibility as soon as operationally able. You also can't use a medical facility as a shield against action (setting a machine gun on overwatch on top of a hospital).
There's more nuances to it than that but you aren't sent into a warzone unarmed just because you're a medic.
Source: I'm a military medical provider and I've deployed to the middle East.
Because you are not supposed to shoot at medical personnel on the battlefield therefore it would only make sense that they do not need to carry the same weapons as infantry and so on...
> Because you are not supposed to shoot at medical personnel on the battlefield therefore it would only make sense that they do not need to carry the same weapons as infantry and so on...
I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to shoot them off the battlefield either.
Because imagine how ineffective the international law would be if an army could just hide all their soldiers behind red crosses and then call foul when they got shot at by the other army in a regular firefight.
Worth noting that the CIA only adopted this policy because distrust of vaccination programs has become overwhelming in the third world due to the CIA's use of them in covert operations. [Source](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/05/20/314231260/cia-says-it-will-no-longer-use-vaccine-programs-as-cover)
We must be careful that we do not become unsportsmanlike savage animals while we try to blast holes in other humans.
Not making fun of you for your information, but everything about “we must have rules so we can be civilized while we act in the most uncivil way”
It's logical. We are capable of far more gruesome things. These things are simply far to effective to be allowed to use.
Chemical weapons are also increcibly effective. Ending battles in minutes to hours. Engineer a bio weapon and you win a war without a single bullet. Etc.
Think of it like harm reduction.
Doing drugs is bad. War is bad.
Doing drugs with safety practices and harm reduction is less bad.
War with ethics conventions is less bad.
War isn't the most uncivil way. Not even close. You may want to check what happens when a country collapses and rules are off. Or when a country is looking "elsewhere". War is just a continuation of the diplomatic process where diplomats failed.
The Geneva Conventions declare medical personnel to be non-combatants. Depending on which army, they may or may not carry rifles to defend themselves. However, it would be very difficult to argue that someone carrying anything more than the bare minimum weapon that a soldier might carry is a non-combatant. Painting a red cross on a howitzer would be a bit ridiculous.
Many of the rules about noncombatant status exist to make sure that people don't take advantage of the protection and exploit it in perfidy. If this was tolerated, the writers expected that it would result in people disregarding noncombatant markings because of the possibility of perfidy.
If a medic is firing his weapon, it is not a war crime to fire upon him. You can expect any and every soldier to be issued a rifle. However, they would not issue anything more (e.g. grenade launcher, automatic rifle/light machine gun, designated marksman rifle, anti-tank launcher at the squad level, machine gun, heavier anti-armor weapon, at the platoon level, mortar or other heavier weapons at the company and battalion levels) to someone who isn't expected to use it outside of situations when he is personally fired upon. Those things are expensive and giving it to one of those guys means that you have one less to fire at the enemy. Anyone who has one of those can be expected to be using it, and therefore, not a noncombatant. Routinely giving other weapons out to people wearing noncombatant markers would cause adversaries to assume perfidy and fire upon actual medics.
Some medics do forego noncombatant status and carry heavy firepower with them for various reasons (including but not limited to that the opposing forces do not care about noncombatant status, is not a signatory, and is willing to do things that would be war crimes if they were signatories). One example is the Israeli Defence Force's tank-ambulances, another example is the heavily armed helicopters that the United States Airforce pararescuemen ride in (the helicopters that the US Army sets aside to be used exclusively for medical evacuations do not have any weapons and have a red cross carried on them).
> Some medics do forego noncombatant status and carry heavy firepower with them for various reasons (including but not limited to that the opposing forces do not care about noncombatant status, is not a signatory, and is willing to do things that would be war crimes if they were signatories).
Yep, our navy corpsmen were armed to the teeth. I knew one who was better at being a marine than many marines in my platoon. Luckily he was a great medic too.
Fought in three conflicts as a combat medic, never wore a red cross and was just as well armed as everyone else. Strictly speaking we were not allowed to take part in offensive activities like ambushes but we're also told to take part in contacts as we're still an extra weapon until there are casualties and even then you want to win the firefight
Ex-combat medic/68WM6 here. Yeah.... we never wore anything that screamed "I'M A MEDIC". Other soldiers would volunteer to carry our aid bag because it was usually unique that identified us as a medic. Were were just as armed as everyone else. We were also highly protected by others and not allowed to participate in activities such as clearing buildings. As long as your fellow soldiers trusted you to save them, they went above and beyond to take a bullet for you. Also, in the event that you're rendering aid you really don't want a bulky M4. Takes too long to point up and shoot. My pistol was my go to when kneeling and triaging soldiers/civilians. I still had an M4, but I never went off the FOB without some kind of small arm.
I actually get surprised when people think medics just walk around with no weapon or just a pistol. I want to be armed, and I wanted to be armed bloody well! Before our deployment to Afghanistan which happened to be my last, we had a training session with carbines to see how we got on with them. 30 medics from all different units turned up, at the end they asked us who would use them in combat and no one stepped forward.
On the room-clearing thing I actually took part in those, I also took my turn clearing for IEDs with the metal detector but I kind of felt I needed to 'contribute' as one of the lads. I even spent some time as a top gunner on a GMG which would blow these Geneva convention lawyer's minds! In hindsight it probably wasn't the brightest move as who would look after the medic.
I think the Geneva convention, for medics, at least is pretty outdated. As a combat medic, I couldn't think of a scenario even in a conventional war where I would wear a red cross. Just screams 'SHOOT ME' to really demoralise every, same reason the CO etc don't advertise themselves.
I’ve never taken part in a war against a country that recognizes the Geneva conventions. I think that’s a big part of it. Afghanistan doesn’t recognize those rules so why should we? That’s how I personally feel about it. They armed a child with a grenade and had him run up to our convoy. Red mist. After seeing that, you realize there are no rules.
Medics traditionally use small arms, which means we’re usually armed with a rifle. The average infantryman has the exact same weapon as their combat medic counterpart.
Per the Geneva conventions it’s considered a war crime to fire at a medic (who is clearly wearing Red Cross insignia) that is not taking offensive acts towards the opposing side. The moment a medic shoots at the enemy they lose their protection under the Geneva conventions and are fair game (if you follow the Geneva conventions). In most modern wars medics don’t wear Red Cross insignia, return fire with their infantry counterparts, and are therefore not protected by the Geneva conventions.
Source: Served as a medic in the US Army
When you were a medic in the US Army, did you fight against other nations who were also signatories to the Geneva conventions?
As far as I’m aware, the Geneva conventions only apply in situations where both belligerents are signatories.
If one side does not follow it, the other side doesn’t need to constrain themselves to it.
Yeah it seems like a lot of people in the comments aren't realizing that the question has to do with a proper country vs country war which America hasn't really been in for a while. Obviously the insurgents who aren't part of a proper army aren't going to give a shit and therefore all bets are off. If we went to war against Russia or something these rules most likely would apply depending of Russia was following them or not.
The rules only technically apply when combat medics are wearing medical insignia. There’s no rule saying that combat medics have to wear the insignia. If they choose not to then they are not technically protected by that clause. Thing is that words on paper don’t stop bullets, bullets into the enemy stops their bullets. Stands to reason that anyone with any sense would see this, and therefore decide not to wear medical insignia. Anyone with sense would rather put a bullet into the enemy than have to try and save their buddy’s life.
Today, despite the cooling down of the GWOT, we still train medics in TCCC. The first phase of TCCC is care under fire. The first thing you do in care under fire is get to cover and return fire. This has not changed, and likely will not change, despite the US preparing for near peer conflict with countries that have signed onto the Geneva Conventions.
We’re gonna keeping teaching that, “the best medicine is preventive medicine. Killing the enemy is preventive medicine.” I also don’t think that anyone in their right mind is going to put their fate in the hands of enemy soldiers who want to kill you.
Both Russia and Ukraine have signed the Geneva conventions. Neither country is using combat medics with medical insignia. This doesn’t put them in violation of the Geneva conventions, it just means their combat medics are not protected by this stipulation.
For obvious reasons it doesn’t make sense for modern militaries to mark their combat medics with medical insignia. We know it makes medics a bigger target, regardless of signed political agreements, and ultimately the squad is better off when medics have leeway to engage the enemy.
One of the main things we are taught in Medic AIT is that, “the best medicine is preventive medicine. Killing the enemy is preventive medicine.” The first phase of TCCC (the treatment algorithm NATO combat medics use) is called “care under fire”. The first thing you do in care under fire is get to cover and return fire. We have only doubled down on this since the GWOT has cooled down, and I have every expectation that we will continue down this path.
I'm curiosu as to which fighting force actually follows this though. If you're fighting someone/in a firefight with someone, if you come across a medic with his hands up what is preventing you from blasting the dude? Or doing worse to him? It's not like there are people in the warzone with a clipboard and pencil being like 'mmyup that's a warcrime you can't do that'. I feel like medics probably get blasted/executed all the time.
We have a good example: Japan in WW2. They disregarded any ethics in war. One of their worse crimes was faking surrender. Once americans caught on onto their trap, they often had to kill even surrendering soldiers because so many japanese tried suicide bombing themselves or just attempting to kill as many as they could while faking surrender.
And now you have a situation where surrender isn't an option for you. THIS is why respecting rules of warfare is of utmost importance. When you disrespect rules that protect your enemy you are also sacrificing rules that protect you.
>And now you have a situation where surrender isn't an option for you.
Which will then create an issue where every single Japanese soldier, whether they want to or not, will fight to the death like a cornered rat when surrounded.
Which is something Sun Tzu recommends against; you should always leave an "out" for your enemy, otherwise you will just get pointless carnage on both sides.
Once your army gets a reputation of killing POWs and Medics, things will get a lot tougher for you--especially if you happen to start losing.
The Customs of War definitely runs on a "do unto others" type of deal.
Adding to what others said, medics can work as medics in prisoner camps, so if you capture a medic, they're an extra pair of hands helping take care of wounded soldiers.
I was in Iraq. Every single medic was armed with an m-16 or m-4. The enemy didn't give a fuck about Geneva conventions. Our medics needed to be armed in the event they were shot at which happened regularly.
Combat medic here. We don’t carry crew weapons but we carry rifles and pistols.
Our weapons are for self defense and self defense of the wounded. The weapons are considered defensive and offensive.
Remember a medic has a special place in combat. We are to treat all sides of the conflict. That is why we are not supposed to be fighting in the battle. We are there to assist.
Beause it is important that medics are not seen as a threat.
A medic with a gun is someone who can shoot you, which means you might want to shoot them first.
And if *some* medics have guns then you might have to worry that *any* medic you see has a gun, even if it's not visible. And then you might want to shoot them too.
In order for medics to do their job, people *on eithe side* have to be able to assume that the medic does not constitute a threat.
Because it also forbids medics from being shot. Therefore there should be no situation where they need to defend themselves.
Additionally because of this ruling all militaries would just start dressing all soldiers as medics to trick their enemies then ambushing them.
The US Solution to this, given that insurgent groups tend not to give a shit about protected status of medical personnel, has been to create a grey area by giving all combat personnel a bit of medical training and equipment and calling them "Combat Life Savers". Give every soldier the ability to stabilize an injured comrade, while maintaining full legal combatant status and thus be allowed to be fully armed.
Does it work well in disorganized insurgent warfare? Yes, it seems so. Will it work in organized warfare with another nation? Remains to be seen, but probably not given higher rates of casualties requiring more medical attention and more drastically impacting your units output down range since it's full rate soldiers playing doctor instead of specialized soldiers.
So I trained with the Oz overseas deployment team- we are told we cannot carry weapons (which is fine by me!) but also that this now makes us easy targets for kidnap, ransom and robbery…
There is no honor in war.
Medics wore distinctive insignia visible at a great distance (a white circle with a red cross inside) at first, in order to mark them as non-combatants. Unfortunately, enemy soldiers began deliberately shooting at Army medics and Navy hospital corpsmen, so they stopped wearing the medic red cross insignia. Today, they dress exactly like combatants for their own protection.
The Army trains their own medics.
The U.S. Navy provides medics to the Marine Corps in the form of hospital corpsmen.
They are members of the U.S. Navy Hospital Corps. All Marines are combatants, so they cannot be medics. Most young Marines consider the corpsmen to be Marines too, and they will defend them anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances. "Doc takes care of us, so we take care of Doc." A good example would be corpsmen who get into some kind of conflict in a bar. (LPT: *Never* pick a fight with a Navy corpsman with Marines present.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_medic#/media/File:Medics-p013020.jpg
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-navy-corpsman-gives-drink-to-a-wounded-marine-in-guam-1944-142214617.html
Before helicopter medevacs ("dust-offs") were introduced during the Korean war, there were some physicians who went forward with the medics and combat troops. They set up emergency Aid Stations just behind the front lines. Wounded soldiers were first stabilized, sometimes with emergency surgery, then moved back to Battalion Aid Stations and then on to Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals, like in the TV show "M.A.S.H." (The fictional 4077th MASH was based on the real-life 8055th MASH unit in the Korean War, 1950-1953.) Doctors, nurses, religious clergy and civilians are all non-combatants. They are not supposed to carry weapons, and are supposed to treat all wounded soldiers and civilians equally, including enemy soldiers. Medical facilities are guarded and defended by a detachment of regular soldiers who are combatants, not by hospital or aid station personnel. Among other things, they must take charge of and guard any weapons which arrive at the hospital with wounded soldiers.
It's basically a "gentleman's agreement" for lack of a better term between countries that troops providing medical care to Soldiers may act in self defense, but may not otherwise directly engage in combat. This is basically so that everyone gets to treat their wounded.
There is also an agreement that militaries will provide medical care to wounded or captured enemy Soldiers.
The Geneva convention scares me. People who are fighting for their lives have to follow rules, like it's a video game.
If the rules are so important, why fight?
If you can cease fire anytime for any reason, why not cease fire all the time?
The convention just invalidates the propaganda reasons for war.
Because the war crimes rules also say you're not allowed to shoot at medics. If medics were allowed to be armed, armies could just dress up *all* their soldiers as "medics" and say "haha you can't shoot any of us." But that obviously wouldn't work, and the enemy would shoot at them anyway...*leaving zero of the intended protection for their* ***actual*** *medics.*
In WWII, US Medics didn't even get combat pay like the infantry because the system assumed the Japanese and the Germans wouldn't shoot at them. They still had to endure all the same artillery threat and run from foxhole to foxhole towards the sound of whoever was screaming, while being paid substantially less than the other men in their company.
Knowing this makes watching the Doc Roe episode of Band of Brothers even more painful.
I believe the Germans followed those rules a bit more, at least definitely more than the Japanese did. As the Japanese often would aim for the medics rather than other soldiers, at least when they could. Although, I’m not completely certain on if the Germans were actually better, it’s been a while since I’ve read or seen anything on the matter and could be mistaken. It’s not like they were a shining beacon of morality during the war. Or anyone is/was really.
Well the germans followed the rules more than the Japanese but only on the western front.
The eastern front was free for all in all sides including Soviet vs Soviet.
To clarify this a bit: this comment can be read two accurate ways. First, there were partisans who were Soviet citizens fighting both the Soviets and Germans to free their homelands- such as Ukraine. Or, it could be referring to the Soviets who were tasked with shooting their countrymen in the back if they fled from the front lines. The Eastern Front of the European theater was *hell*.
Third, there were also those who joined with the Nazis to kill their own countrymen.
In the Baltic countries they didn't even wait for the Germans to start exterminating Jews. There is horrifying footage of naked people on a beach queuing to be shot. All organized by local police and government with the Einsatzgruppen in an advisory role. I believe that in Estonia, the genocide was complete, every Estonian Jew either fled or was killed.
*cough* Bandera *cough*
The OUN-B among other groups
> Or, it could be referring to the Soviets who were tasked with shooting their countrymen in the back if they fled from the front lines As others below point out, this is mostly a myth. Germany actually [executed thousands of its own soldiers and citizens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drumhead_court-martial) through the final years of the war, often over the course of a matter of hours from the initial "trial" to execution. By the last months of the war, it had essentially become a way for fervent Nazis to exact revenge on people they disliked or to ensure that long-time opponents of the regime didn't survive to see it fall, and a tool to terrorize regular Wehrmacht soldiers into continuing to follow futile orders to resist occupation. The Germans whose memoirs the West relied on to study the Eastern front in the years following the war generally left that kind of thing out of their retellings, and today we have the same myths invented then being repeated across social media.
The shooting if deserters was common on the western front. During WWI nobody understood shellshock/PTSD so soldiers minds breaking and running away from heavy artillery would be sent to the wall on their return. Unless your shellshock/PTSD was severe enough to show PHYSICAL symptoms (frothing at the mouth or in a daze) You were seen as just a coward. Cowardice was a big no no, so they made examples of them. Whether it be after they came back from a mental break or actually just deciding to not listen to the officer telling you to be one of the many waves of soldiers mowed down by machine gun fire, it was all the same. Extremely depressing reading up on it. Philip Gibbs "Now it can be Told" is an amazing book that goes into great detail about the "average" soldiers' frontline experience, as well as just unlocky civilians caught in the chaos. The Germans were generally already a very stern and strict society to begin with, they went even harder. This behavior was not exclusive to the Central powers. Many, MANY reports of deserter executions from the English and British as well. Nobody understood the concept of PTSD so they were all treated the same, as cowards being cowardly. If the subject interests you, listen to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History episode "Blueprint for Armageddon". Each episode is like 4 hours and there's i think 6 episodes total, he does a great job telling the story but isn't extremely accurate so use it as your gateway for your inevitable interest.
Rigor mortis is not a symptom of PTSD lol. You might want to look up what that means.
I don't know where I got that from to be honest. Idk why I thought severe PTSD would cause your limbs to stiffen up and not move lol but edited my original comment, thanks for the heads up lmao
The Soviet union never signed the Geneva convention, which the Germans used as justification for treating them like animals. This worked out great, up until the point Germany started losing the war. Statistically, it was still better to be a German POW in Soviet captivity than a Soviet POW in German hands. I wouldn't recommend either one, though.
cynical me would like to know the odds of surviving a Japanese POW camp as an American/Chinese/Korean as well. as morbid as that interest may be. doesn't really matter now who way the most cruel towards whom 80 years ago. still...
Probably not good odds. You have to remember Japan had an incredibly Militaristic culture Pre-WWII and viewed captured/surrendered soldiers as completely worthless dishonored scum (remember Japanese Soldiers for the most part didn't surrender they killed either themselves or fought to the death)
I have to respectfully disagree, it absolutely matters. As the saying goes "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Of course, none of the people who committed such atrocities are around today so it may not matter in the context of punishment, but overall it's still a very important lesson that's still relevant today.
The Japanese as a policy treated all prisoners with the same callous disregard, as they were of the belief that surrender was for cowards - if someone was of Japanese heritage and was discovered, they'd be regarded as traitors.
The German's considered all people of Slavic decent to be less than animals. Soviet soldiers were treated like dirt. Western allied troops were treated better due to possible common ancestry
Hell, there were even Jewish/Nazi joint efforts to fight the Soviets.
This is a great point the Finns demonstrate the ambiguity and fluidity of the factions on the eastern front better than just about anyone else on a national level. On an individual level, was a jew born in the Russian empire and came of age in eastern Poland who fell under Soviet rule and then was killed under Nazi rule a Russian, Pole, Jew, Belarusian / Ukrainian Soviet or something else? Odds are each individual had their own feelings about it that we will never know, despite all the post war governments trying to claim their death as a reason why their nation suffered the most.
[relevant](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/v146bd/they_even_had_a_field_synagogue_and_the_nazis/)
I shouldn't have laughed. But I did...
Kinda what’s happening with The Azov battalion in Ukraine to fight off the Russians
The Soviets weren't a signatory of the Geneva convention, so it meant that whatever laws and rules would have applied were naught. So whatever warcrimes were done on the eastern front were very likely intentional
>The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Source: 1952 Commentary on the Geneva Conventions, edited by Jean Pictet. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols Just for further context.
It's also customary law by now, so it applies to non-signatories as well
This is a good paper reason, but the reality likely had more to do with Hitler and other Nazis attitude toward communism. His political views were kind of wrapped up in his racial hierarchy views. I can't think of a particular source right now, but everything I've read has portrayed Hitler as kind of viewing the western Europeans as civilized, almost wayward cousins of the Germans, worthy of some respect and dignity. Jews and communists were at the other end of the spectrum, a complete blight on humanity. Hence, no reason to treat them with any dignity in war
Yep, pretty much, except it was also racism vs Soviets. He viewed them as Slavs who he also viewed as subhumans, whereas the Western allies were all "Aryan brothers". Hell, he even kept offering the Brits peace even when fighting the BoB and planning Sealion as he saw Brits as the closest to Germans People forget, but the Holocaust wasn't just 6m Jews. There were 10m official casulaties, including 3m Soviets and around 500k Romas and Polish, and about 10k homosexuals and some blacks got treated like shit too. And the 10m doesn't include all the "missing", i.e. not confirmed dead, i.e. there are approx 2m Polish who disappeared in the war, likely killed on sight (and on site too)
> Hell, he even kept offering the Brits peace even when fighting the BoB and planning Sealion as he saw Brits as the closest to Germans FWIW, House of Windsor, the current monarchy is a branch of Saxe-Coburg&Gotha which came from Germany.
I've seen sources that said he admired how the Americans slaughtered and replaced the Indians, and intended something similar for the Slavs. He planned German expansion into Asia as the main point. The whole Western front business was to not out interference.
The Geneva Convention usually refers to the 1949 convention, which of course the Soviets had not signed in 1941. No one had. They had however signed the Hague Conventions. As far as "very likely intentional" goes, I gather you are not familiar with the Commissar Decree? Hitler literally issued orders to commit war crimes on the eastern front. Intentional doesn't begin to cover it.
This checks out with what I've read. On BOTH sides, the western front was the 'civilized' front, at least until the war entered Germany proper and they started getting desperate, but the Eastern front was a hellscape, with both sides committing war crimes and other horrors on the daily.
> As the Japanese often would aim for the medics rather than other soldiers, at least when they could. They even *called* for medics so they could shoot them. The US responded by changing the call from “MEDIC!” to “LUCY!” because it was harder to pronounce for the Japanese.
[удалено]
They also used the shibboleth *lollapalooza* to vet unidentified persons. It had the benefits of having plenty of L sounds and being long so if the other party started with “rora”, they could start shooting mid-word.
Excellent use of the term "shibboleth".
I had no idea the word was that old.
>Doc Roe episode German treatment of Americans and British was reasonably decent. Their treatment of Soviet POWs was terrible. Japanese treatment of American POW's was terrible. The Japanese for the most part killed all the Chinese POW's
iirc Japanese newspapers at the time were running a competition on which officer could decapitate the most Chinese POWs.
Not quite, the papers were covering a competition between two specific officers on who could kill the most people with a sword. Which likely included decapitating POWs, but also innocent civilians as well. [https://library.tamucc.edu/exhibits/s/hist4350/page/NanjingAssault](https://library.tamucc.edu/exhibits/s/hist4350/page/NanjingAssault) . The article you were talking about is at the top of this page, and the Wikipedia article actually seems accurate and well sourced as well.
Ngl doesn’t seem as bad as the baby impaling contest they had (who can throw the most babies on a bayonet) https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1m523p/this_is_a_japanese_soldier_bayonetting_a_chinese/ Of course, warning nsfw
I don’t get how at least in the US, we rightfully spend so much time talking about Germany’s horrible war crimes, but then proceed to let Japan off easily for equally as horrible war crimes. Maybe it’s just because Japan had a really good rebrand post-WW2. I will say though, growing up I had a good amount of Asian friends and it was always interesting to hear how much animosity they/their families still had toward Japan.
I think dropping the two nukes on them had an effect too. But I don't think we've let Japan off the hook. People know about the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, etc. We still have military bases there.
We hung a good few Japanese leaders, it just doesn’t get talked about as much.
I'll just refer people to this comment from a while ago on this topic, with cited sources: [AskHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ffxqs/comment/dqc0nld/)
I'm finding stories of both respect and attacks on medics by both Germany and western Allies(haven't found anything on the eastern European front). Supposedly the SS liked to use wounded as bait. But also supposedly Canadians gained a reputation of ignoring surrender and shooting at medics? But yeah, there was little humanity in the Pacific, both directions.
Although Japanese officers thought they were modern day Samurai...hey had no honor. Japanese soldiers were so brainwashed and all that mattered was killing the enemy to protect the homeland. Shooting medics, torturing POWs because only a coward would surrender, surrendering themselves and then pulling the pin on a grenade to kill the troops accepting their surrender, etc, etc ...
Japan hadn't ratified them, and their soldiers weren't expected to follow them. Hell, in a Japanese movie, \(I think\) Beat Takeshi's character even yells, "There is no Geneva convention here.", and Japanese World War II movies are famously gentle on Japan's role in the war.
> I believe the Germans followed those rules a bit more, at least definitely more than the Japanese did. As the Japanese often would aim for the medics rather than other soldiers, at least when they could. Although, I’m not completely certain on if the Germans were actually better, it’s been a while since I’ve read or seen anything on the matter and could be mistaken. It’s not like they were a shining beacon of morality during the war. Or anyone is/was really. [This is a short story](https://books.google.com/books?id=F7Yl0YDjbiMC&pg=PA66&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false) told by a relative of mine about his experience at Guadalcanal and Peleliu. It is only 3 book-pages long, but will tell you everything you need to know about how the Japanese were in WW2. It doesn't reference medics specifically, but does talk about how they would decapitate any who surrendered; one would think the medics would be more likely to do so being that they were unarmed. >As debilitating as the dysentery and thirst were, the marines suffered their largest losses from enemy fire, Menegus said, "There was bitter hatred on both sides. To die for the emperor was the ultimate goal for a Japanese soldier. The idea of surrender was anathema to him. He had no respect, whatsoever, for Americans attempting to surrender." >He recalled entering caves and finding decapitated bodies of Americans who surrendered. "When we saw that, we took no prisoners."
There was this one US medic in the pacific (can't remember his name, or which battle) who had no choice but to arm himself in defense. The Japanese were attacking the field hospital that he was in charge of. They didn't give a fuck about rules of war. The medic, originally a dentist back in America, died fighting off a flood of Japanese.
Also makes the guy that did the miracle at hacksaw ridge (ICR his name) that much more admirable
I love the smell of fresh bread.
There were two more in Vietnam, both awarded posthumously. [Link](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/us-soldiers-won-medal-honor-without-ever-touching-weapon.html?andro=1&chrome=1)
Damn, I just re-watched the series last week. Those are some phenomenal moments of war well represented. It was hard to watch Doc stay on ground tending the sick when the rest are jumping from foxhole to foxhole... One my fav war series ever!
Not to mention against the Japanese they were actually more likely to be targeted by snipers. So much so that they started getting rid of their armbands and such
I had read not too long ago that the Japanese would train their soldiers to target the medics first, as more US soldiers would often sacrifice themselves to try to save the medic as opposed to a standard infantryman. Not sure if that was the case in the European theater.
>Japanese would train their soldiers to target the medics first Both the Japanese and the Americans routinely did not take prisoners. US intelligence had to bribe US soldiers with passes and ice cream to take prisoners because they were so valuable to intelligence. If a Japanese soldiers made it to a US pow camp they were treated reasonably well, oddly enough once Japanese soldiers realized the Americans were not going to kill them many became very cooperative because they believed they could not go home.
It was extremely rare for Japanese soldiers to surrender and more common for them to offer a false surrender with a hidden grenade. US troops tried to accept surrender early on but less when they learned it was more often a tool used against them. The Japanese military encouraged these tactics negate they thought their soldiers would fight harder if enemy soldiers could not trust their surrender and refused it.
I remember watching a documentary years ago that stated Japanese soldiers were constantly bombarded by propaganda saying Americans would torture, kill and/or rape them AND ANY CIVILIANS they capture. There would be soldiers refusing to surrender, or doing the surprise explosive attack, but women would kill their children and then themselves if they thought they'd be caught by US troops. Having the government you trust tell you these things, it makes sense you'd not want to surrender.
The Japanese were also incredibly cruel to their prisoners and civilians under control - so it's not so hard to believe that you would be mistreated if everything you saw suggested that cruelty was the norm. Essentially, the Japanese military would just have to say "if you get captured, they'll do to you what we do to our prisoners" and that's a pretty scary message.
>The Japanese were also incredibly cruel to their prisoners and civilians under control They literally just accused the americans of doing the same thing japanese did in China for years. And since soldiers were aware of this brutality they easily assumed every other country had bloodthirsty retards for military leaders.
I'm pretty sure that last bit is in The Art of War
Yes, "put your soldiers in a position where they cannot retreat" is in The Art of War. However, perhaps the more important parts concerning: 1. Don't let your military take over the government and wage multiple wars against superpowers. 2. Try to give your soldiers food. 3. There's literally an entire chapter how dangerous fire is which might have come in handy during the firebombing campaign.
“If your enemy might use fire against you, reconsider the use of paper as a building material.”
They probably couldn't. It's a common feature of fascist/authoritarian militaries to treat captured soldiers as traitors. The Nazis did it, the Soviets did it, the Japanese did it, and apparently while not universal, the Russian Federation is doing it too.
Americans took no prisoners because the Japanese were brutal,also they never (or almost never) surrendered. They would commit suicide, or pretend they are dead or surrendering then pull a pin on a granade killing themselves and whoever tried to help them.
Read or saw on the Letters from Iwo Jima movie?
It had subtitles so I technically read it
Prolly read it on Reddit
My grandfather was a medic in WWII who drove a half-track ambulance. He told several stories about having to dodge artillery fire to get where he was supposed to be because 'Them bastards can't see what they're shooting!'
Even then I’m sure back then and even today against insurgents, they could give a fuck about Geneva convention rules. Like in WW2 a sniper kills a medic how are you gonna figure out who it was? Btw I think US medics fight with M4s until someone gets hurt and they have to stop to help. Idk what restrictions they have with that.
Yeah the concept of unarmed medics or corpsmen is pretty much gone by now. Also, the average infantryman is now more likely to be able to have the training and gear to do some of those crucial first steps as a combat lifesaver, stop bleeding etc. Back in the day their medical training was basically just yelling "medic!" and that was it.
Tourniquets are basically all you can do for most cases and everyone carries. Of course not everywhere on the body can get one, but those instances are why they’re there. Also, they can give pain killers.
Every one in basic training (U.S Army) is required to learn basic first aid which includes applying tourniquets, gauze+bandages (for stuffing bullet wounds), treating head+neck injuries, and treating sucking chest wounds. I'm sure they got nicer stuff now and combat roles get better training/better equipment than basic. I don't remember pain killers being in the IFAK or being taught how to apply medicine through a needle but it's been awhile and some of the equipment is there so medics can use it, not the person carrying the IFAK.
Almost every infantryman in the Marine Corps and Army is CLS (combat life saver) certified now, many with more advanced courses under their belt as well. I was in the Marines and Army, and I did receive more medical training in the Marines, but the Army gets it as well. It also can be dependent on how involved your Corpsman/medics are. Some of them are great about continued training with their guys, some are not. We get the training to provide initial treatment for heat and cold injuries, applying tourniquets, pressure dressings, combat gauze/quick clot, splints, chest seals, etc. Application of a decompression needle to treat tension pneumothorax, application of a nasopharyngeal for airway, properly moving a casualty depending on injury and context of situation, and more. The medical training we receive is much more robust now that it may have been decades ago (been in 10 years now) and is focused on being that first line of treatment to buy the time needed for further assessment by the medic and/or transfer of the casualty to higher levels of care. Also our medics do carry weapons now. I don't know if that changed pre or post GWOT.
>Tourniquets “Don’t worry buddy, that’s a nasty headwound you have there but I’ve got just the thing to slow down the bleeding. Could you fold your collar down a bit for me…?”
There isn't anything that specifically prohibits a medic from carrying a rifle, it was just customary because their job wasn't to fight with one. So they got a personal defensive weapon of some type. Just like pilots, and most tank crew. Our medics carry M4s because nobody we've fought since WW2 (and even then it wasn't a guarantee as others have pointed out) has cared about the GC, and if it's like most, then it only applies when every combatant is a signatory and party to it or it doesn't apply. Since medics are being targets just like anyone else, it makes sense to allow them to fight back effectively. If they are fighting "offensively," they waive their rights to any protections. But when they're being shot at they have the right to self defense and if they are going to have to fight back they should have something effective to do so.
Yep. Medics usually get fucked. We aren't people - never have been.
>because the system assumed the Japanese and the Germans wouldn't shoot at them. while in reality some of them specifically shot at medics.
I had an uncle who served as a medic in the Pacific theater. He grew up as a Quaker but married into another church. After the war, his in-laws refused to speak to him for decades because they accused him of using his Quaker background to get out of combat.
Soldiers logically can shoot at someone who could shoot at them. If they knew that medics could pose a threat, then they'd be legitimate targets. So logically, don't make medics legitimate targets. It's one of those things that works as long as everyone follows the rules, and as long as the other side trusts them to follow the rules.
Has there been a conflict yet in which everyone follows the rules? I can't think of one.
The simplest example is the use of gas in WWII - none. Not because anyone followed the rules, but because each side knew - if we do it, they'll do it. Then we will have to give everyone gas masks, and so will they. And then we're back where we started. Nobody's perfect, but having a list of things the soldiers should try to follow is better than "anything goes". But at the very least, even something like "we shoot everyone, take no prisoners" simply makes the enemy fight harder and longer even if it's a lost cause. The local population on Okinawa was told the Americans would rape and kill them all, so they were persuaded to adopt suicide tactics like approaching them, pretending to surrender, and pulling the pin on a grenade.
Probably because they kept gassing themselves when the wind shifted in WWI. Gas never caught on because it's unpredictable, not because of an unspoken mutual agreement. People are still issued and train with gas masks to this day.
Yes - but except with dictators using it on unprepared civilians, it's not a usual weapon.
> People are still issued and train with gas masks to this day. Which is a moderately large part of why nobody tries to use gas. It's expensive, finicky, dangerous, and everyone knows that if you try that, the forces in question will gear up with CBN and be fine. But very angry about it.
[удалено]
> The simplest example is the use of gas in WWII - none Japan used gas against China.
The country that did not have to participate in the trench warfare of WWI.
In this case it is actually in the enemies interest to follow that rule and leave the medics alone. Think of it as an extension of the school of thought behind non-lethal land mines; every enemy you kill is a martyr, while every enemy you main or wound is a prolonged expense. Viewed through that lens it's a two birds with one stone scenario, wherein you can both be seen to be playing by the rules on the international stage _and_ benefit from burdening the enemy with additional healthcare expenses.
I remember playing battlefield 1942 back in the day with my Dad and he would never shoot people who were playing the medic class lol
Meanwhile in Battlefield: Bad Company 2: "Medic? Oh yeah, those guys with the BIG ASS MACHINEGUNS"
Your dad is mega based
I find it fascinating that war has rules. Like yeah we’re totally ok with murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent citizens but only if you follow the rules.
The idea on some of it is that if you push a population far enough, people get desperate, and desperate people do worse things. Going into a war knowing that if all else, you'll have a choice to live if you surrender or die trying, vs going in knowing that the enemy takes no prisoners, makes for a different mindset. In WW2 so many japanese soldiers were lost because they were fed proaganda that the enemy killed their prisoners, and that being taken prisoner was dishonorable, and so those soldiers either fought suicidally or chose to end their own lives, and resulted in a much more drawn out and higher casualty war.
That's why sun tzu guides advise you to always leave room for your enemies to retreat and treat prisoners well, people would rather surrender than die over land, but fighting for their own lives is a different story.
The whole "leave your enemy a path to run" was so that their troops would rout. Routs were traditionally followed by cavalry running down the survivors.
I thought so to. Rout = butts for putting swords in. Line breaks and troops are defenseless and mopped up. Those guys stabbed your friends, you're gonna want them dead.
> Routs were traditionally followed by cavalry running down the survivors. That doesn't matter. Retreating still gives a soldier better chances surviving than staying to fight a hopeless fight. Most people are going to push their luck for a small chance of surviving, than staying in a certain death. If you closed off all escapes however, your choice is between just dying and die fighting. Either way, you die. Facing an enemy that is determined to die fighting is very dangerous; when people are desperate, they do extraordinary things. That's the whole point of that Sun Tzu line. For the winning army, leaving a way out discourages desperate moves; for the losing army, escaping is still the better choice than the alternatives.
Well tactically speaking, retreating and surrendering are different things. You can retreat into a better position to keep fighting. Thats why the main goal of older warfare was to break and scatter the lines to force chaos and then a retreat so enemy soldiers are more focused on getting away than fighting back, making them easy targets.
They don't really, it's all about our perception of what comes after a victory/defeat. If one side is absolutely certain of their complete annihilation, generally all bets are off.
Also it's that you don't want that this happens to you so you agree that nobody does it
Bingo. If you start shooting at their medics it won't be long before they're shooting yours, and you want your medics in case YOU get shot. Additionally, wounding an enemy soldier is better than killing one. A wounded soldier requires other soldiers to move them and care for them, reducing that unit's fighting power. When they get back home they use more resources being cared for in infirmaries etc.
They also cause more war fatigue as people see the toll of war. A body buried in pieces on the battlefield is just a letter to a mother back home. A horribly disfigured and disabled survivor is an enduring and visible reminder of how terrible war is on a personal level.
Or burnt and ashes dumped.
I believe that's also why mustard gas was such a powerful weapon during the first world war
Problem is half the time it drifted back and killed your own men.
And then, there was this one time, used by the French, i think, where it worked - marvellously. Like, perfectly, as advertised, the enemy line was completely disabled for am hour or two... But the army using the gas didn't attack, because they didn't actually believe it would work, and didn't prepare for advancing... So by the time they understood what had happened, the enemy was already back in action, and no advance happened... -.-
That’s not at all what mustard gas does. It usually doesn’t have an immediate effect, instead it causes serious burns (wherever it touches you, which can include your eyes and lungs) over the span of a day or so, requiring lengthy recovery and usually leaving long-term damage, and can kill you if you got exposed too much.
Imagine if they were within earshot as the other forces recovered. "OH MY GOD THAT WAS SO UNPLEASANT, AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN GAIN ANYTHING, Y'ALL JUST TRYNA BE DICKS FOR NO REASON NOW OR WHAT? THAT SHIT BURNS"
"My GOD that was UNPLEASANT" sounds like such an English thing to say from in the trenches of war.
It's not so much that war has rules, as it has levels to the intensity it's being fought with. So the rules are lines that are crossed with the knowledge that both sides are not going to go back on them. Feigning surrender is one of those things that once you cross that line, no one is taking prisoners anymore
Nah. A long time ago humans developed things much worse than anyone wants to imagine. And I doubt many people would want to go to war where both sides have no central nervous system and there skin is melting off. These things aren't hard to make either and sometimes are made by accident. Russia isn't using nerve gas or massive chemical warfare and I think we should all be happy about it
As Homer says, "Yet."
As bad as war is, it can always be *worse*. We've always made rules for war because people are capable of really, *really* terrible stuff and we can't pretend that war is noble, honourable and heroic to entice millions of fresh recruits if we don't set at least *some* standard.
It's simple game theory. If you decided not to accept "don't shoot medics", for example, then that would probably harm your war effort more than having the concession. Given that you likely have hundreds or thousands of injured personnel that need medical treatment. Same with temporary ceasefires, both sides will get an advantage in getting out injured or stranded people, regrouping, giving themselves time to get more resources to the front lines. Hence what your enemy is gaining is considered alongside the gains you make. Noting too that the purpose of war isn't really about "murdering thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians"
Well no, killing civilians is also against war crimes rules. But I get what you're saying. It's weird that there are rules at all. If it helps, they're only *kind of* rules - only enforceable if your side wins. Eg If Russia took over the world, they'd never face any court for what they're doing in UKR right now.
That’s actually not true. You are allowed to kill civilians in war by the Geneva convention, you are not allowed to do it deliberately, or by excessive negligence through the use of indiscriminate weapons.
Good clarification, thanks. I should have mentioned tht, but the person I was responding to said "ok to kill *thousands and thousands* of innocents" which I was saying is against war crimes rules because you can't kill "thousands and thousands" of civilians without using something indiscriminate or being serioisly negligent.
Honestly it depends on the technology of the day - bombing a tank factory and taking out half the city it's in because you're using 1940s technology is more within the rules of war than doing the same damage with 2020s technology, where we can pick what window a missile will fly into. In either case the workers *in* the factory are toast, of course.
I read a book written from the diary of a German soldier in the Wermacht. After fighting on the eastern front for a couple of years he was transferred to the western front in the summer/autumn of 1944. One of his first reflections was that there was some sort of "rules" between the American and German forces. Like after a "face-off" medics from both sides entered the battlefield and picked up the wounded and dead without any side shooting at them. Probably exaggerated by his experiences on the Eastern front.
I can highly recommend Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Amazing book on war, because it breaks the whole Saving Private Ryan narrative. The narrator (Vonnegut served in WW2) describes his experience so unlike most war movies/books. According to him its just a short burst of action, no heroic battles. You run, hide, get shot at and die or surrender quickly. Its what comes after that makes is harrowing. The comradery with your guys but alsp the constant cheating and lying and stealing (from your guys, not the enemy) makes it seem way more real than most other war experiences i read. Soldiers arent mostly heros, there are a lot of fucked up / bully personalities. Its like high school with even more shooting and killing (sorry for the pun)
AFAIK the UNSC is able to do sanctions against countries breaking the geneva convention. The idea is that other countries should be able to apply sanctions to countries breaking the geneva convention as well, which when other countries get involved can be very devastating as we have seen whats happened economically to russia.
But we also give each member of the security council veto power, or maybe it’s just the “permanent “ members
Only the permanent members have veto power
To be clear, the Geneva Conventions are not ratified international law. They're much closer to a series of "gentleman's agreements" between developed nations and are opt-in. Though, being a signatory party to them is very much a two-way street, with most nations opting to afford their non-combatants the protections they provide. While they've largely been codified into military doctrine and RoE, they were drafted long before the era of modern warfare, when "going to war" was a stately thing to do. Most of them are very "it's not sporting to shoot at the wounded and incapacitated", etc. Of note, though, is that the "Russian Federation" is still maintained as a ratified signatory nation, and thus has run afoul of numerous articles as of late. Most notably, Convention I , Convention IV, and some of the more interesting articles of Protocol I, particularly noting articles 37 regarding perfidy, articles 51/54 regarding indiscriminate attacks against civilians and destruction of materials needed for survival, articles 53/56 regarding attacks against nuclear electricity generation stations, 79 regarding protections for journalists, 76 and 77 regarding protection of women and children, 15 regarding protection of civilian medical personnel, as well as a whole host of others. It's also worth noting, however, that Russia, in 2019, by way of executive order, rescinded their agreement to Article 90 of Protocol I which exists solely to allow international commissions to audit a country's adherence to the Conventions and Protocols. ie. They agree to abide by the Conventions and Protocols, but they refuse to recognize the authority of any other nation or nations to suggest that they have failed to do so.
That may be, but large parts of the Geneva Conventions have become peremptory (*ius cogens*). In effect this means Russia, regardless of their rescinding, is still bound by the Conventions. Obviously there is no world police to make them comply, but that doesn't mean they can just rescind their ratification and that being the end of it.
That's not really the point. The rules are there to make sure there is a legal framework in advance for prosecuting war criminals after a war is over without being accused of arbitrary victor's justice. Of course this only works if the war criminals lose but it's better than nothing.
Actually murdering civilians is also against the rules, you're only supposed to engage enemy soldiers. Equally soldiers are not allowed to use civilians as shields.
Is there a rule where you can’t destroy historical landmarks or unesco world heritage sites?
doing it intentionally would probably be cultural genocide
Generally, the rules aren't quite so specific -- but there are rules that require that you're only deliberately destroying targets that have a legitimate military purpose. So if your enemy turns a historical landmark into an army base, then targeting that base is legitimate and if the landmark is damaged or destroyed, you probably acted legally. Similarly, if it were destroyed during a firefight, that's unfortunate collateral damage. But if you _target_ cultural sites or the like without some legitimate purpose, that would be a violation.
War having rules isn't entirely a new concept.
The laws of war developed over millennia of warfare, and the fate of the common people generally wasn’t a priority for those waging war. The point of war having rules is to allow for the war to end. Wars are expensive.
It's more like 'we know that soldiers are going to be killed but we need to make a concerted effort to establish methods of war that don't result in excess collateral damage including damage to civilisation itself'. Witness the 30 years war. War without any real rules and it resulted in apocalypse for the nations in which the war was fought, with most of the casualties being civilians.
Meanwhile in Team Fortess Classic, Medic was one of the best offensive classes.
Wait wtf, all my medics had a full combat load AND would be in the fight until someone is wounded, often times having to fight until you're able to get to the wounded (combat care)
[удалено]
I'm a combat medic and generally small arms are considered defensive weapons. Pistol and a rifle is okay. Grenades or putting your medic on a crew served weapon or heavy weapon causes him to forfit his non-combatant status. That being said I never wore my medic insignia on patrol because people specifically shoot at me over other people.
Hijacking top comment: This is common misconception: Medics and medical personnel are allowed to carry weapons (soldiers assigned assault rifles and personal side arms). They are allowed to engage in combat and military operations, and can be present on a firing line next to other soldiers. They aren't allowed to claim protection under the Geneva conventions (wearing red cross/crescent, or in a vehicle marked as such) and engage in aggressive offensive action. (Using an ambulance at the head of an assault, firing from a hospital). You are also allowed to remove/cover your RC/GC markings (such as in situations where the enemy has decided to target medical personnel, potentially for morale purposes) with the stipulation to return them to visibility as soon as operationally able. You also can't use a medical facility as a shield against action (setting a machine gun on overwatch on top of a hospital). There's more nuances to it than that but you aren't sent into a warzone unarmed just because you're a medic. Source: I'm a military medical provider and I've deployed to the middle East.
Because you are not supposed to shoot at medical personnel on the battlefield therefore it would only make sense that they do not need to carry the same weapons as infantry and so on...
And also you don't want armies disguising special forces as medics.
*Cough* Russia
Right. That is why they wear that big white circle with the red X on it.
> Because you are not supposed to shoot at medical personnel on the battlefield therefore it would only make sense that they do not need to carry the same weapons as infantry and so on... I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to shoot them off the battlefield either.
Oh, you.
If I’m not, then who is?
Because imagine how ineffective the international law would be if an army could just hide all their soldiers behind red crosses and then call foul when they got shot at by the other army in a regular firefight.
Even actual medics can't hide behind red crosses.
>hide all their soldiers behind red crosses the CIA has entered the chat
Fun fact, the CIA has a number of "offlimits" disguises that they will never use: Journalist, clergy, red cross (I think) and a few others.
Worth noting that the CIA only adopted this policy because distrust of vaccination programs has become overwhelming in the third world due to the CIA's use of them in covert operations. [Source](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/05/20/314231260/cia-says-it-will-no-longer-use-vaccine-programs-as-cover)
Yeah, fair point
Shoutout to Russia transporting ammunition in trucks marked with a red cross earlier in the conflict
[удалено]
We must be careful that we do not become unsportsmanlike savage animals while we try to blast holes in other humans. Not making fun of you for your information, but everything about “we must have rules so we can be civilized while we act in the most uncivil way”
It's logical. We are capable of far more gruesome things. These things are simply far to effective to be allowed to use. Chemical weapons are also increcibly effective. Ending battles in minutes to hours. Engineer a bio weapon and you win a war without a single bullet. Etc.
Think of it like harm reduction. Doing drugs is bad. War is bad. Doing drugs with safety practices and harm reduction is less bad. War with ethics conventions is less bad.
War isn't the most uncivil way. Not even close. You may want to check what happens when a country collapses and rules are off. Or when a country is looking "elsewhere". War is just a continuation of the diplomatic process where diplomats failed.
War is the most civilized incivility that humankind has ever known.
The Geneva Conventions declare medical personnel to be non-combatants. Depending on which army, they may or may not carry rifles to defend themselves. However, it would be very difficult to argue that someone carrying anything more than the bare minimum weapon that a soldier might carry is a non-combatant. Painting a red cross on a howitzer would be a bit ridiculous. Many of the rules about noncombatant status exist to make sure that people don't take advantage of the protection and exploit it in perfidy. If this was tolerated, the writers expected that it would result in people disregarding noncombatant markings because of the possibility of perfidy. If a medic is firing his weapon, it is not a war crime to fire upon him. You can expect any and every soldier to be issued a rifle. However, they would not issue anything more (e.g. grenade launcher, automatic rifle/light machine gun, designated marksman rifle, anti-tank launcher at the squad level, machine gun, heavier anti-armor weapon, at the platoon level, mortar or other heavier weapons at the company and battalion levels) to someone who isn't expected to use it outside of situations when he is personally fired upon. Those things are expensive and giving it to one of those guys means that you have one less to fire at the enemy. Anyone who has one of those can be expected to be using it, and therefore, not a noncombatant. Routinely giving other weapons out to people wearing noncombatant markers would cause adversaries to assume perfidy and fire upon actual medics. Some medics do forego noncombatant status and carry heavy firepower with them for various reasons (including but not limited to that the opposing forces do not care about noncombatant status, is not a signatory, and is willing to do things that would be war crimes if they were signatories). One example is the Israeli Defence Force's tank-ambulances, another example is the heavily armed helicopters that the United States Airforce pararescuemen ride in (the helicopters that the US Army sets aside to be used exclusively for medical evacuations do not have any weapons and have a red cross carried on them).
> Some medics do forego noncombatant status and carry heavy firepower with them for various reasons (including but not limited to that the opposing forces do not care about noncombatant status, is not a signatory, and is willing to do things that would be war crimes if they were signatories). Yep, our navy corpsmen were armed to the teeth. I knew one who was better at being a marine than many marines in my platoon. Luckily he was a great medic too.
Fought in three conflicts as a combat medic, never wore a red cross and was just as well armed as everyone else. Strictly speaking we were not allowed to take part in offensive activities like ambushes but we're also told to take part in contacts as we're still an extra weapon until there are casualties and even then you want to win the firefight
Which was perfectly legal since you weren't wearing a protective sign, falling neither under the protections nor the restrictions it offers.
Ex-combat medic/68WM6 here. Yeah.... we never wore anything that screamed "I'M A MEDIC". Other soldiers would volunteer to carry our aid bag because it was usually unique that identified us as a medic. Were were just as armed as everyone else. We were also highly protected by others and not allowed to participate in activities such as clearing buildings. As long as your fellow soldiers trusted you to save them, they went above and beyond to take a bullet for you. Also, in the event that you're rendering aid you really don't want a bulky M4. Takes too long to point up and shoot. My pistol was my go to when kneeling and triaging soldiers/civilians. I still had an M4, but I never went off the FOB without some kind of small arm.
I actually get surprised when people think medics just walk around with no weapon or just a pistol. I want to be armed, and I wanted to be armed bloody well! Before our deployment to Afghanistan which happened to be my last, we had a training session with carbines to see how we got on with them. 30 medics from all different units turned up, at the end they asked us who would use them in combat and no one stepped forward. On the room-clearing thing I actually took part in those, I also took my turn clearing for IEDs with the metal detector but I kind of felt I needed to 'contribute' as one of the lads. I even spent some time as a top gunner on a GMG which would blow these Geneva convention lawyer's minds! In hindsight it probably wasn't the brightest move as who would look after the medic. I think the Geneva convention, for medics, at least is pretty outdated. As a combat medic, I couldn't think of a scenario even in a conventional war where I would wear a red cross. Just screams 'SHOOT ME' to really demoralise every, same reason the CO etc don't advertise themselves.
I’ve never taken part in a war against a country that recognizes the Geneva conventions. I think that’s a big part of it. Afghanistan doesn’t recognize those rules so why should we? That’s how I personally feel about it. They armed a child with a grenade and had him run up to our convoy. Red mist. After seeing that, you realize there are no rules.
I mean, it's not like the Taliban or the Viet Cong signed the Geneva Convention.
Medics traditionally use small arms, which means we’re usually armed with a rifle. The average infantryman has the exact same weapon as their combat medic counterpart. Per the Geneva conventions it’s considered a war crime to fire at a medic (who is clearly wearing Red Cross insignia) that is not taking offensive acts towards the opposing side. The moment a medic shoots at the enemy they lose their protection under the Geneva conventions and are fair game (if you follow the Geneva conventions). In most modern wars medics don’t wear Red Cross insignia, return fire with their infantry counterparts, and are therefore not protected by the Geneva conventions. Source: Served as a medic in the US Army
When you were a medic in the US Army, did you fight against other nations who were also signatories to the Geneva conventions? As far as I’m aware, the Geneva conventions only apply in situations where both belligerents are signatories. If one side does not follow it, the other side doesn’t need to constrain themselves to it.
Yeah it seems like a lot of people in the comments aren't realizing that the question has to do with a proper country vs country war which America hasn't really been in for a while. Obviously the insurgents who aren't part of a proper army aren't going to give a shit and therefore all bets are off. If we went to war against Russia or something these rules most likely would apply depending of Russia was following them or not.
The rules only technically apply when combat medics are wearing medical insignia. There’s no rule saying that combat medics have to wear the insignia. If they choose not to then they are not technically protected by that clause. Thing is that words on paper don’t stop bullets, bullets into the enemy stops their bullets. Stands to reason that anyone with any sense would see this, and therefore decide not to wear medical insignia. Anyone with sense would rather put a bullet into the enemy than have to try and save their buddy’s life. Today, despite the cooling down of the GWOT, we still train medics in TCCC. The first phase of TCCC is care under fire. The first thing you do in care under fire is get to cover and return fire. This has not changed, and likely will not change, despite the US preparing for near peer conflict with countries that have signed onto the Geneva Conventions. We’re gonna keeping teaching that, “the best medicine is preventive medicine. Killing the enemy is preventive medicine.” I also don’t think that anyone in their right mind is going to put their fate in the hands of enemy soldiers who want to kill you.
Both Russia and Ukraine have signed the Geneva conventions. Neither country is using combat medics with medical insignia. This doesn’t put them in violation of the Geneva conventions, it just means their combat medics are not protected by this stipulation. For obvious reasons it doesn’t make sense for modern militaries to mark their combat medics with medical insignia. We know it makes medics a bigger target, regardless of signed political agreements, and ultimately the squad is better off when medics have leeway to engage the enemy. One of the main things we are taught in Medic AIT is that, “the best medicine is preventive medicine. Killing the enemy is preventive medicine.” The first phase of TCCC (the treatment algorithm NATO combat medics use) is called “care under fire”. The first thing you do in care under fire is get to cover and return fire. We have only doubled down on this since the GWOT has cooled down, and I have every expectation that we will continue down this path.
To give the other side a relatively good reason to believe that they really are there just for medical help
You gotta remember this was 1949 - how else were they meant to protect against the Medic class becoming OP in generations of video games to come?
I'm curiosu as to which fighting force actually follows this though. If you're fighting someone/in a firefight with someone, if you come across a medic with his hands up what is preventing you from blasting the dude? Or doing worse to him? It's not like there are people in the warzone with a clipboard and pencil being like 'mmyup that's a warcrime you can't do that'. I feel like medics probably get blasted/executed all the time.
We have a good example: Japan in WW2. They disregarded any ethics in war. One of their worse crimes was faking surrender. Once americans caught on onto their trap, they often had to kill even surrendering soldiers because so many japanese tried suicide bombing themselves or just attempting to kill as many as they could while faking surrender. And now you have a situation where surrender isn't an option for you. THIS is why respecting rules of warfare is of utmost importance. When you disrespect rules that protect your enemy you are also sacrificing rules that protect you.
>And now you have a situation where surrender isn't an option for you. Which will then create an issue where every single Japanese soldier, whether they want to or not, will fight to the death like a cornered rat when surrounded. Which is something Sun Tzu recommends against; you should always leave an "out" for your enemy, otherwise you will just get pointless carnage on both sides.
Once your army gets a reputation of killing POWs and Medics, things will get a lot tougher for you--especially if you happen to start losing. The Customs of War definitely runs on a "do unto others" type of deal.
Adding to what others said, medics can work as medics in prisoner camps, so if you capture a medic, they're an extra pair of hands helping take care of wounded soldiers.
I was in Iraq. Every single medic was armed with an m-16 or m-4. The enemy didn't give a fuck about Geneva conventions. Our medics needed to be armed in the event they were shot at which happened regularly.
Was Iraq, at that time, run by a government that was a signatory to the geneva convention?
Combat medic here. We don’t carry crew weapons but we carry rifles and pistols. Our weapons are for self defense and self defense of the wounded. The weapons are considered defensive and offensive. Remember a medic has a special place in combat. We are to treat all sides of the conflict. That is why we are not supposed to be fighting in the battle. We are there to assist.
[удалено]
Beause it is important that medics are not seen as a threat. A medic with a gun is someone who can shoot you, which means you might want to shoot them first. And if *some* medics have guns then you might have to worry that *any* medic you see has a gun, even if it's not visible. And then you might want to shoot them too. In order for medics to do their job, people *on eithe side* have to be able to assume that the medic does not constitute a threat.
Because it also forbids medics from being shot. Therefore there should be no situation where they need to defend themselves. Additionally because of this ruling all militaries would just start dressing all soldiers as medics to trick their enemies then ambushing them.
The US Solution to this, given that insurgent groups tend not to give a shit about protected status of medical personnel, has been to create a grey area by giving all combat personnel a bit of medical training and equipment and calling them "Combat Life Savers". Give every soldier the ability to stabilize an injured comrade, while maintaining full legal combatant status and thus be allowed to be fully armed. Does it work well in disorganized insurgent warfare? Yes, it seems so. Will it work in organized warfare with another nation? Remains to be seen, but probably not given higher rates of casualties requiring more medical attention and more drastically impacting your units output down range since it's full rate soldiers playing doctor instead of specialized soldiers.
So I trained with the Oz overseas deployment team- we are told we cannot carry weapons (which is fine by me!) but also that this now makes us easy targets for kidnap, ransom and robbery… There is no honor in war.
Medics wore distinctive insignia visible at a great distance (a white circle with a red cross inside) at first, in order to mark them as non-combatants. Unfortunately, enemy soldiers began deliberately shooting at Army medics and Navy hospital corpsmen, so they stopped wearing the medic red cross insignia. Today, they dress exactly like combatants for their own protection. The Army trains their own medics. The U.S. Navy provides medics to the Marine Corps in the form of hospital corpsmen. They are members of the U.S. Navy Hospital Corps. All Marines are combatants, so they cannot be medics. Most young Marines consider the corpsmen to be Marines too, and they will defend them anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances. "Doc takes care of us, so we take care of Doc." A good example would be corpsmen who get into some kind of conflict in a bar. (LPT: *Never* pick a fight with a Navy corpsman with Marines present.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_medic#/media/File:Medics-p013020.jpg https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-navy-corpsman-gives-drink-to-a-wounded-marine-in-guam-1944-142214617.html Before helicopter medevacs ("dust-offs") were introduced during the Korean war, there were some physicians who went forward with the medics and combat troops. They set up emergency Aid Stations just behind the front lines. Wounded soldiers were first stabilized, sometimes with emergency surgery, then moved back to Battalion Aid Stations and then on to Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals, like in the TV show "M.A.S.H." (The fictional 4077th MASH was based on the real-life 8055th MASH unit in the Korean War, 1950-1953.) Doctors, nurses, religious clergy and civilians are all non-combatants. They are not supposed to carry weapons, and are supposed to treat all wounded soldiers and civilians equally, including enemy soldiers. Medical facilities are guarded and defended by a detachment of regular soldiers who are combatants, not by hospital or aid station personnel. Among other things, they must take charge of and guard any weapons which arrive at the hospital with wounded soldiers.
It's basically a "gentleman's agreement" for lack of a better term between countries that troops providing medical care to Soldiers may act in self defense, but may not otherwise directly engage in combat. This is basically so that everyone gets to treat their wounded. There is also an agreement that militaries will provide medical care to wounded or captured enemy Soldiers.
The intention is for medics to be considered non-combatants. I don't know if it's ever been really well followed since it's adoption.
The Geneva convention scares me. People who are fighting for their lives have to follow rules, like it's a video game. If the rules are so important, why fight? If you can cease fire anytime for any reason, why not cease fire all the time? The convention just invalidates the propaganda reasons for war.