Would a modern army rape and pillage?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: namehere
i have no doubt modern western nations would do it if not for the geneva convention, our modern society is too depraved, uncontrolled and undisciplined not to, not only that but modern training is much softer than 300 years ago and troops are nowhere near as disciplined.

I doubt it..

One piece of paper isn't stopping the superpowers from doing anything if they wanted to..

By today's sensibilities it would be hard to propaganda yourself the good guys when legally allowing rape and pillage.

Actually, a piece of paper can stop a lot, especially when it is a convention enforced by many countries. The cost of being convicted of war crimes is too high for a nation.

The desire to rape, murder, and dominate is still there, it is just better controlled, and now, there are consequences for rape and pillage. Consequences that make the spoils of war not look so great.

Thats why. Not because we are more moral or civilized.

Yes, they will. You know why? It called Child Soldiers. If you don't know who the enemy is, people will pillage. Since the Iraq war and WW2. Like the Nazi Youth army.

Perhaps a better question... would army personal in a modern army turn on those that raped children. I don't think so because the culture of killing is no worse than rape itself.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Put then under the right conditions and you might be surprised, unpleasantly so.

It's not that I think the men and women of our armed forces are all chomping at the bit to be baby killers, far from it. What I'm suggesting is that we are not that far removed from what we think of as the "savage" past, and given the right conditions, we readily revert to it, nearly all of us.

It's the way we are. It's the nature of the beast shall we say. It's a product of our primitive survival instincts.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: JoshuaCox
The Russian army which reached Berlin in 1945 was fairly modern.
As for the modern American army, you may like to look up the story of My Lai in Vietnam.
When men have weapons in their hands, their conduct depends on the state of their discipline and morale.

Or the propaganda machine?

We are wild animals and the reason mental illness is on the rise is because said animals feel caged. It would take very little to get us all to start eating one another just like in the wild very little. No Electric would be a good start and be warned in the case of me vs you to survive trust me I would cook your rump happily.

Just a thought but its instinct which takes us back to our roots and we are fools to believe different.

a reply to: namehere

By pointing out the "modern western nations" specifically, do you infer that nations other than these would not do such a thing? Do you believe a Chinese soldier or a Columbian soldier, or maybe an Iranian soldier or a Sudanese soldier, after killing most of the men in your town, and confiscating your home for shelter, would not # your wife and your daughters and even your sons? Ask your wife. She knows they would. You are a fool.

a reply to: glend

Unlikely. Unit pride and loyalty is a big thing, and ratting out your bros is often on par with treason.

On top of that, rape and sexual violence in the ranks, military sexually assaulting and raping their own people, has been a huge problem for decades, one that has only come come to light in recent years. But if you think it is mostly, or limited to, female military personnel, you would be mistaken. Sexual assault by male servicemen on other male service men is staggeringly high, and far less reported for obvious reasons. Even in peace time, in garrison, the rape and pillage (theft by other soldiers in the barracks is also a big problem) is still a problem and commanders often have to really crack down at certain points.

Most of the people I served with were awesome human beings. But there were also a lot of people I knew when I was in that I wouldn't leave my dead grandmother's corpse alone with them for fear of them violating her. The military attracts the strongest, bravest, most honorable people in our society, but on the flip side, it also attracts a number of psychopaths and monsters within who are attracted only by the prospect of destruction and killing.

From my own experience, the things that keep military units and their troops from going Lord of the Flies in garrison and on deployment is a combination of the following:

1. Most important: strong, solid, healthy leadership. You need Officers and NCOs who are strong leaders who maintain discipline, high standards, and focus on the unit's mission. Clear communication from top down and back up. Trust in the leadership.

2. Morale. If morale is good, soldiers are far less likely to engage in career and life destroying activities. Good morale is heavily dependent upon #1, strong leadership and discipline. The better members of a unit feel about their abilities and mission, the more confident, and fewer problems.

3. Clear sense of purpose and mission goal. If they know exactly what is to be expected to be achieved, and are directed mainly towards achieving that goal, they are going to be more focused on that than the "extracurriculars" of combat.

If you want a good example between conflicts where the above three things were present vs absent, look at WW2 vs Vietnam, and the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts.


1. In WW2, we had a very strong military command. From top to bottom, most officers and NCOs of the time had a firm hold on their charges, kept good order. They instilled discipline and order but were more often than not fair in terms of punishments/corrective actions. They were also better at keeping morale up and salvaging it when it was low. And the purpose/mission of the military in that war was clear: complete surrender and capitulation of the Japanese and Germans. Everyone knew exactly what was expected, and the focus was on that goal. As a result, compare the behavior of U.S. soldiers in Germany and Japan compared to the behavior of Russian soldiers in Germany. Yes, a few of our soldiers did indeed rape Germans, kill them, or steal their property and possesions. However, this behavior was swiftly, publicly, and heavily punished by the serviceman's command, and violators were made examples of. By contrast, other than sense of clear purpose, everything else was missing from the Russian army. Their commanders were as eager to get it on as the troops, morale and training was low, and war crimes against German civillians were rarely punished, and usually quietly.

2. Vietnam was WW@ military flipped on it's back. Most of the leadership and unit commands in Nam were chaotic, constantly changing, with standards and expectations all over the place. Poor discipline, little order, and commanders as burnt out and disinterested in mission success as the soldiers were. Morale was terrible, as there was not only no clear objective, but a constant shifting of priorities for political reasons. Fewer and fewer people cared about the actual war, and most soldier's focus was surviving their tour and making it home in one piece. Very few believed in what they were doing overall, objectives were all over the place. And as we see in Vietnam, American soldiers engaged in a lot more of the raping and looting than they did in WW2, and more often than not, suffered few, if any consequences unless a reporter or journalist caught it.

3. Iraq: Morale has been in a steady decline in the military over the course of the war, and re-enlistment/retention rates dropped. Much of this was for similar reasons Vietnam went to hell. Crappy, indecisive leaders detached from their actual charges. leaders more interested in career advancement than anything. No clear objective. And while our military deployed and did their actual part of the job very well, they were also expected to do things the military is not designed for, and the very purpose for Iraq was questionable from the start. Excessive deployments, poor troop care, and apathetic leadership in Iraq was behind a lot of the problems over there. While it wasn't as out of control as Vietnam, what my friends who deployed have even hinted at is pretty disturbing.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Wonderfully honest and knowledgable post Skadi_the_Evil_Elf. Thanks for taking the time to share and educating our minds.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

As glend says, a really interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

More the question of what it would take you to do it now..

Most replys saying "we still do it" or "they would in a heart beat". Seem to be taking it from a "they would" , rather than a "we would" POV.

It still happens how. Like I said earlier. People haven't changed in any major way in thousands of years. So the only difference between people "back then" and people "now" as far as raping and pillaging is a cultural change. People themselves are no different. In the same environment they will act the exact same way. We have just decided it's not acceptable as a society that's all.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: namehere
i have no doubt modern western nations would do it if not for the geneva convention, our modern society is too depraved, uncontrolled and undisciplined not to, not only that but modern training is much softer than 300 years ago and troops are nowhere near as disciplined.

I doubt it..

One piece of paper isn't stopping the superpowers from doing anything if they wanted to..

By today's sensibilities it would be hard to propaganda yourself the good guys when legally allowing rape and pillage.

Actually, a piece of paper can stop a lot, especially when it is a convention enforced by many countries. The cost of being convicted of war crimes is too high for a nation.

The desire to rape, murder, and dominate is still there, it is just better controlled, and now, there are consequences for rape and pillage. Consequences that make the spoils of war not look so great.

Thats why. Not because we are more moral or civilized.

The paper isn't stopping you lol.. it's the fear of the penalty making it illegal..

Which was the whole point, that society used to not only allow it, but glorify it..

So if it's illegal to do so then it's a war crime,not an legal institutional thing.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

More the question of what it would take you to do it now..

Most replys saying "we still do it" or "they would in a heart beat". Seem to be taking it from a "they would" , rather than a "we would" POV.

It still happens how. Like I said earlier. People haven't changed in any major way in thousands of years. So the only difference between people "back then" and people "now" as far as raping and pillaging is a cultural change. People themselves are no different. In the same environment they will act the exact same way. We have just decided it's not acceptable as a society that's all.

See there you go again with the "they" lol..

What percent of the group would be required for you to do it??

It's really easy to say "they would do it..."

When it was an institutional thing you would be doing it.. or saying today's average joe soldier would, is saying that you would if put in that situation..

See I kinda doubt it..

I think our up bringing was so vastly different, that even given the option 75+% says no.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't know why you're so intent on arguing with me when we're basically saying the same thing.

Culture has changed and society has changed and some things aren't acceptable.

However, that doesn't mean people have changed. Raise them in a culture of Rape and they'll Rape. Raise them not to Rape and they won't. There are exceptions for that on both sides as well.

Reality is, even in today's society Rape happens quite a lot and you don't have to be a soldier in battle to do it either. There are also many who find it horrible and will fight against it. I'm sure we have less rapists than in days long past. But as you point out it was accepted by society back then and not now so it makes sense.

Society has changed so there is less of it. Doesn't mean it doesn't still happen though.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: glend

Unlikely. Unit pride and loyalty is a big thing, and ratting out your bros is often on par with treason.

On top of that, rape and sexual violence in the ranks, military sexually assaulting and raping their own people, has been a huge problem for decades, one that has only come come to light in recent years. But if you think it is mostly, or limited to, female military personnel, you would be mistaken. Sexual assault by male servicemen on other male service men is staggeringly high, and far less reported for obvious reasons. Even in peace time, in garrison, the rape and pillage (theft by other soldiers in the barracks is also a big problem) is still a problem and commanders often have to really crack down at certain points.

Most of the people I served with were awesome human beings. But there were also a lot of people I knew when I was in that I wouldn't leave my dead grandmother's corpse alone with them for fear of them violating her. The military attracts the strongest, bravest, most honorable people in our society, but on the flip side, it also attracts a number of psychopaths and monsters within who are attracted only by the prospect of destruction and killing.

From my own experience, the things that keep military units and their troops from going Lord of the Flies in garrison and on deployment is a combination of the following:

1. Most important: strong, solid, healthy leadership. You need Officers and NCOs who are strong leaders who maintain discipline, high standards, and focus on the unit's mission. Clear communication from top down and back up. Trust in the leadership.

2. Morale. If morale is good, soldiers are far less likely to engage in career and life destroying activities. Good morale is heavily dependent upon #1, strong leadership and discipline. The better members of a unit feel about their abilities and mission, the more confident, and fewer problems.

3. Clear sense of purpose and mission goal. If they know exactly what is to be expected to be achieved, and are directed mainly towards achieving that goal, they are going to be more focused on that than the "extracurriculars" of combat.

If you want a good example between conflicts where the above three things were present vs absent, look at WW2 vs Vietnam, and the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts.


1. In WW2, we had a very strong military command. From top to bottom, most officers and NCOs of the time had a firm hold on their charges, kept good order. They instilled discipline and order but were more often than not fair in terms of punishments/corrective actions. They were also better at keeping morale up and salvaging it when it was low. And the purpose/mission of the military in that war was clear: complete surrender and capitulation of the Japanese and Germans. Everyone knew exactly what was expected, and the focus was on that goal. As a result, compare the behavior of U.S. soldiers in Germany and Japan compared to the behavior of Russian soldiers in Germany. Yes, a few of our soldiers did indeed rape Germans, kill them, or steal their property and possesions. However, this behavior was swiftly, publicly, and heavily punished by the serviceman's command, and violators were made examples of. By contrast, other than sense of clear purpose, everything else was missing from the Russian army. Their commanders were as eager to get it on as the troops, morale and training was low, and war crimes against German civillians were rarely punished, and usually quietly.

2. Vietnam was WW@ military flipped on it's back. Most of the leadership and unit commands in Nam were chaotic, constantly changing, with standards and expectations all over the place. Poor discipline, little order, and commanders as burnt out and disinterested in mission success as the soldiers were. Morale was terrible, as there was not only no clear objective, but a constant shifting of priorities for political reasons. Fewer and fewer people cared about the actual war, and most soldier's focus was surviving their tour and making it home in one piece. Very few believed in what they were doing overall, objectives were all over the place. And as we see in Vietnam, American soldiers engaged in a lot more of the raping and looting than they did in WW2, and more often than not, suffered few, if any consequences unless a reporter or journalist caught it.

3. Iraq: Morale has been in a steady decline in the military over the course of the war, and re-enlistment/retention rates dropped. Much of this was for similar reasons Vietnam went to hell. Crappy, indecisive leaders detached from their actual charges. leaders more interested in career advancement than anything. No clear objective. And while our military deployed and did their actual part of the job very well, they were also expected to do things the military is not designed for, and the very purpose for Iraq was questionable from the start. Excessive deployments, poor troop care, and apathetic leadership in Iraq was behind a lot of the problems over there. While it wasn't as out of control as Vietnam, what my friends who deployed have even hinted at is pretty disturbing.

Those would be more war crimes than a fair representation of what the rape and pillaging would be like in the past..

In your examples there is a need to hide what you have done, while in the past you would have been cheered .

Also all the criteria you listed is absolutely present in modern war crimes, but wouldn't be in all the historical accounts of cities getting sacked, as getting to sack the city was the goal or prize.

What I was wondering is if your average soldier would today, not the psychopaths that have been in any conflict.


I don't think your average US soldier would even if allowed.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't know why you're so intent on arguing with me when we're basically saying the same thing.

Culture has changed and society has changed and some things aren't acceptable.

However, that doesn't mean people have changed. Raise them in a culture of Rape and they'll Rape. Raise them not to Rape and they won't. There are exceptions for that on both sides as well.

Reality is, even in today's society Rape happens quite a lot and you don't have to be a soldier in battle to do it either. There are also many who find it horrible and will fight against it. I'm sure we have less rapists than in days long past. But as you point out it was accepted by society back then and not now so it makes sense.

Society has changed so there is less of it. Doesn't mean it doesn't still happen though.

Not just less dramatically omg less..

We are going from a time when 99% of every army would rape and murder any civilians in a town.

To today when what?? Less than 5% do and those are usually in a crazy high stress situations as mentioned as another posters reply a couple above us.

That is totally different than anything modern times puts out.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It shows the power of societal norms. Which is a good thing too. I wouldn't want to live in a time where Raping and Pillaging was acceptable.

However, if you think about it. It could be very easy to see that again simply by changing the perception of what's ok.

That's what I mean by it being just below the surface. Even now, it doesn't take much to get people to accept extremely horrible ideas simply by giving them a reason that it's ok. There are even experiments which prove this.

All it takes is for some authority figure to say it's ok or some simple arbitrary reason to be given and people can easily be talked into doing horrible things that they never thought they would do.

It's actually a very thin line that separates us from being good and bad people. We like to think of ourselves as good people and that we'd be very heroic and all that but often times that isn't the case.

Just look into the Milgram Experiments. The results were so shocking that they were refused at first because so many other psychologists refused to accept them as being true even though they were. They just didn't want to believe that people could be so easily made to act so bad by simple methods.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your average soldier very much would, if allowed. You forget the climate of war, the mentality war opens, military culture, and how war actually shifts your brain. If a unit commander gave his troops total permission to do so, at least half the unit would likely take him up on the offer. Most soldiers and other military personnel are young males whose natural seek and destroy aggression has been nurtured by necessity and amplified, because it is necessary for success in combat. This trigger doesn't just suddenly switch back to human once they encounter civilians, especially ones with lots of good stuff for the taking. It requires good solid leaders with firm control over their commands, and good discipline, to reign in this instinct. Military discipline is a powerful thing, and critical to any military success.

I seriously do not see what point you are trying to make. If you think that rape and pillage have become less acceptable to people, you are wrong. It all depends on who is doing the raping and pillaging, and what they call it. On top of that, countries at war, people often see the enemy as irredeemable scum and not people, so any reported war crimes that don't involve full scale genocide are often debated and even shrugged off. Do people openly cheer it on? Not really, but they are dismissive or apathetic towards it as "boys being boys" or "Can you blame them?"

The desire and nature to do these things is there, and society's tolerance or acceptance/ encouragement of this depends on a number of things. We havent become "better" by any means. The Geneva conventions aren't universally accepted, and even many in our society would like to see them dumped. That tells me a lot right there.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your average soldier very much would, if allowed. You forget the climate of war, the mentality war opens, military culture, and how war actually shifts your brain. If a unit commander gave his troops total permission to do so, at least half the unit would likely take him up on the offer. Most soldiers and other military personnel are young males whose natural seek and destroy aggression has been nurtured by necessity and amplified, because it is necessary for success in combat. This trigger doesn't just suddenly switch back to human once they encounter civilians, especially ones with lots of good stuff for the taking. It requires good solid leaders with firm control over their commands, and good discipline, to reign in this instinct. Military discipline is a powerful thing, and critical to any military success.

It may just be a semantics issue I have here, but if it is an "instinct" why are the commanders not susceptible to the same "instincts"?

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your average soldier very much would, if allowed. You forget the climate of war, the mentality war opens, military culture, and how war actually shifts your brain. If a unit commander gave his troops total permission to do so, at least half the unit would likely take him up on the offer. Most soldiers and other military personnel are young males whose natural seek and destroy aggression has been nurtured by necessity and amplified, because it is necessary for success in combat. This trigger doesn't just suddenly switch back to human once they encounter civilians, especially ones with lots of good stuff for the taking. It requires good solid leaders with firm control over their commands, and good discipline, to reign in this instinct. Military discipline is a powerful thing, and critical to any military success.

It may just be a semantics issue I have here, but if it is an "instinct" why are the commanders not susceptible to the same "instincts"?

I think it would be more cultural. That's why I don't think your average us army member would..even if allowed and after a hard battle.

All the cultural carrots and sticks were situated in a way to reward and glorify that type of stuff.

All of our carrots and sticks go the other way..or mostly.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your average soldier very much would, if allowed. You forget the climate of war, the mentality war opens, military culture, and how war actually shifts your brain. If a unit commander gave his troops total permission to do so, at least half the unit would likely take him up on the offer. Most soldiers and other military personnel are young males whose natural seek and destroy aggression has been nurtured by necessity and amplified, because it is necessary for success in combat. This trigger doesn't just suddenly switch back to human once they encounter civilians, especially ones with lots of good stuff for the taking. It requires good solid leaders with firm control over their commands, and good discipline, to reign in this instinct. Military discipline is a powerful thing, and critical to any military success.

I seriously do not see what point you are trying to make. If you think that rape and pillage have become less acceptable to people, you are wrong. It all depends on who is doing the raping and pillaging, and what they call it. On top of that, countries at war, people often see the enemy as irredeemable scum and not people, so any reported war crimes that don't involve full scale genocide are often debated and even shrugged off. Do people openly cheer it on? Not really, but they are dismissive or apathetic towards it as "boys being boys" or "Can you blame them?"

The desire and nature to do these things is there, and society's tolerance or acceptance/ encouragement of this depends on a number of things. We havent become "better" by any means. The Geneva conventions aren't universally accepted, and even many in our society would like to see them dumped. That tells me a lot right there.

I don't think you would get a number close to half and would even have those fighting against orders to stop it...verbally if not physically.

All of our carrots and sticks are against such things. So for every psycho I think you have two hero's, with the problem being when to many psychos end up in the same group



And no point just an interesting thought while looking into military history.