I believe the misconception comes from the fact that the vast majority of soldiers during the war did not see active combat, the 20% number seems to be made up but it is pretty close to the estimated percentage of WW2 GIs that participated in active combat, a number estimated to be around 14% (or about 1 million soldiers), but again it has nothing to do with cowardice or an unwillingness to fire back.
Well I don't think you're a coward for not aiming to kill. I believe most would just shoot in the general direction. Because the engagement distances where usually pretty far and you're being shot back at
My grandfather was a paratrooper in the 550th glider infantry. A while back I was going through his discharge papers, a small section detailed what weapons he had apparently fired. I was surprised to see how many there were. I still wonder how accurate the information is. It's hard to pinpoint exactly where he was dropped, but I know he had been part of the effort to push back the Germans during the later stages of The Battle of the Bulge- so in way _I'm not_ surprised he would have fired so many weapons. Assuming the discharge papers are accurate.
I find historicity of events is really fascinating. Especially with legendary figures like Augustine, Socrates, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, Napoleon. Some people question that Socrates actually existed, or the historicity of the Pali Canon in its depictions of the Buddha. World War II is probably easier to decipher, but things like the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam were initially covered up, only until later discovered to have been real incidents. Theories like Aryan Migration theory is still disputed in India despite the scholarly consensus in academia that it did indeed happen, Audrey Truschke’s historical revisionism on the life of Aurangzeb is severely criticised as promoting genocide against Indians. There’s so much mystery in history. And trusting which sources, etc. Translations errors or language biases, historicity, etc.
@@MrMikkyn I find accusations of things like genocide to be a distraction when it comes to things like the recording of history. The bottom line is whether it’s accurate or plausible or just nonsense. Not whether it hurts someone’s feelings. I’m not well informed on the ancient history of India, but if I were my priory would be on the authors citations, not on the popularity of his work.
My Dad was a machinist in the Corps of Engineers. He carried a weapon during drills but was never in combat. He was 26 when he was drafted and was a staff sergeant by the time he was discharged.
I didn’t think that they „refused“ to fire their weapons like pacifists. Rather, I had them impression that they were afraid and just kept down till the shooting was over.
I think some soldiers didn't do so because of ,,mental blockage" (which is a real thing when trying to kill someone, and many snipers of WW2 reported it at first) and some others because they literally weren't issued one (like in Red Army), but I think this number is 20-30% of all soldiers in WW2, not 80.
Combat is usually sharp and fast. It usually takes the human brain, pushing down the fight or flight impulse, a few seconds to figure out wtf is going on and from where. It's also shockingly loud. I had a machine gunner in Afghanistan laying down fire like a champ. In the wrong direction. His training kicked in well before his brain's ability to make rational decisions.
I read Don Burgett’s books on his time in the 101 during WW2. He related an incident during the latter stages of M-G where a soldier saw a sniper, pointed, his rifle at him and yelled Bang! This is what he had been taught in training and he just reacted as he was trained. And it got him killed by the sniper.
Thanks for setting record straight.
I believe the misconception comes from the fact that the vast majority of soldiers during the war did not see active combat, the 20% number seems to be made up but it is pretty close to the estimated percentage of WW2 GIs that participated in active combat, a number estimated to be around 14% (or about 1 million soldiers), but again it has nothing to do with cowardice or an unwillingness to fire back.
Well I don't think you're a coward for not aiming to kill. I believe most would just shoot in the general direction. Because the engagement distances where usually pretty far and you're being shot back at
Marshall barely fits into the category of "trust but verify."
My grandfather was a paratrooper in the 550th glider infantry. A while back I was going through his discharge papers, a small section detailed what weapons he had apparently fired. I was surprised to see how many there were. I still wonder how accurate the information is.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly where he was dropped, but I know he had been part of the effort to push back the Germans during the later stages of The Battle of the Bulge- so in way _I'm not_ surprised he would have fired so many weapons. Assuming the discharge papers are accurate.
I find historicity of events is really fascinating. Especially with legendary figures like Augustine, Socrates, Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Buddha, Napoleon. Some people question that Socrates actually existed, or the historicity of the Pali Canon in its depictions of the Buddha. World War II is probably easier to decipher, but things like the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam were initially covered up, only until later discovered to have been real incidents. Theories like Aryan Migration theory is still disputed in India despite the scholarly consensus in academia that it did indeed happen, Audrey Truschke’s historical revisionism on the life of Aurangzeb is severely criticised as promoting genocide against Indians. There’s so much mystery in history. And trusting which sources, etc. Translations errors or language biases, historicity, etc.
Getting his exact schedule might be difficult, but the combat History of his regt would be public record.
I commented on your gf down below.
@@MrMikkyn I find accusations of things like genocide to be a distraction when it comes to things like the recording of history. The bottom line is whether it’s accurate or plausible or just nonsense. Not whether it hurts someone’s feelings. I’m not well informed on the ancient history of India, but if I were my priory would be on the authors citations, not on the popularity of his work.
I suspect that would have been what weapons he was trained on not what he used in combat.
Thank you for telling us the truth about some of the U.S. soldiers not were not cowards and keep up the good work, please
I’ve always been more into WWI, but ever since i started watching WWW- I’ve been into WWII much more. I’ve also learned so much from WWW.
Thank you!
So when did WWW happen?
@@garrisonnichols807 WWW = “World War Wisdom”
@@garrisonnichols807 I think www means world war wisdom
My Dad was a machinist in the Corps of Engineers. He carried a weapon during drills but was never in combat. He was 26 when he was drafted and was a staff sergeant by the time he was discharged.
I didn’t think that they „refused“ to fire their weapons like pacifists. Rather, I had them impression that they were afraid and just kept down till the shooting was over.
I think some soldiers didn't do so because of ,,mental blockage" (which is a real thing when trying to kill someone, and many snipers of WW2 reported it at first) and some others because they literally weren't issued one (like in Red Army), but I think this number is 20-30% of all soldiers in WW2, not 80.
Combat is usually sharp and fast. It usually takes the human brain, pushing down the fight or flight impulse, a few seconds to figure out wtf is going on and from where. It's also shockingly loud. I had a machine gunner in Afghanistan laying down fire like a champ. In the wrong direction. His training kicked in well before his brain's ability to make rational decisions.
And again, “they were there, so they would know” historiography takes a massive L
It makes zero sense for a huge part of the war barely fight the war
Glad you are getting the truth out there!🇺🇸
Great video. Keep up the good work.
I’m glad your on our side
So who peeled potatoes?
I also heard somewhere that most soldiers would shoot high since they didn’t want to kill?!
Did His Water Bottle Just Move In The Background At 0:32
Are jump cuts new to you? 🤷♂️
I read Don Burgett’s books on his time in the 101 during WW2. He related an incident during the latter stages of M-G where a soldier saw a sniper, pointed, his rifle at him and yelled Bang! This is what he had been taught in training and he just reacted as he was trained. And it got him killed by the sniper.
1st