[notch656a]

Can you lay out the conditions under which you'll accept references? I've had a lot of issues before where I provide this sort of evidence and the counterparty relentlessly and tediously explains why every single source is either wrong or doesn't meet their arbitrary standards, so I want to be sure this won't be turned into one of those situations.

[nomel]

I'm genuinely interested in how that perspective came to be since it is, to my world view, a shocking and hard to believe claim. But, my surprise isn't worth anything. I'm unable to find search term that gives something relevant, so anything would help.

But, I think it's a bit unfair to make, what appears to be, a very bold assertion, without explaining it or allowing criticism. I have no interest (or qualification) to criticize your sources, but I would hope that someone would criticize mine.

[mgdlbp]

I've only heard of evidence against, that interviews of US soldiers post WWII found only 1/4 had shot to kill. I've never really looked into it; the claim is somewhat disputed, I think.

The two commonly cited books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing

r/AskHistorians doubts it: https://redd.it/22o24j https://redd.it/2od6eg