That's actually not true at all. All animals, but particularly mammals, are reluctant to kill others of their own kind. Males trying to bring females into estrus by killing cubs fathered by someone else is the one exception, but even that is not super common.
In the chapter called Why the Legend of the Killer Ape Never Dies Robert W. Sussman points out, “By 2004, there had been only 17 suspected and 12 “observed” cases of adult chimpanzee-chimpanzee killings reported from four of nine chimpanzee long-term research sites. This spanned a total of 215 years of combined observer time at these sites and yields a maximum rate of one chimpanzee killing every 7.5 years.” (p. 104)
As is noted in Chimpanzees, Warfare, and the Invention of Peace, a chapter written by Michael L. Wilson, “Because aggression generally involves costs, animals usually avoid getting into direct fights if they can (Fry & Szala, chapter 23). Instead, they threaten and display at their rivals. If they do get into a direct fight, animals usually seem content to chase rivals off rather than pursuing, capturing, and killing them.
Lions, who are often touted as evidence of inherent animal violence because they kill cubs fathered by other males will go out of their way to avoid interacting with members of other prides to prevent violent altercations. Among northern elephant seals, threats outnumber physical confrontations by about sixty to one. The statistics around other types of mammals of all sorts are similar. (p. 454)
Women in occupied countries sometimes collaborate with invaders because it's better than starving, and the other deprivations that come with being occupied. Duh!! Also, not all such liaisons were strictly voluntary. In any case, that's not somehow a negation of the nearly 1 million Russian women who volunteered to fight the Nazis or the extraordinary number of French women (who were not allowed to formally fight) but who were in the French Resistance. Talk about some pretzel logic . . .
Again, it's about THE stupidest thing I've ever heard to blame women for not serving in the military WHEN THEY WERE ACTIVELY KEPT FROM DOING SO BY MEN! And yet, a lot of them figured out ways to do it anyhow and kept demanding to be allowed to do any military job they qualified for - something that didn't come about in the US until 2013, despite decades of women's advocacy to allow that.
In the Gulf War, from just 1990-1991, more than 40,000 women deployed to combat zones, although they still could not technically serve in direct combat roles or assignments.
In 1994, President Bill Clinton rescinded the “Risk Rule,” essentially allowing women to serve in all positions in the military except for direct ground combat roles. This allowed for many more women to still engage in combat as aviators, sailors, Air Force personnel and other roles.
Since the opening of combat positions to women (in 2013), several female service members have trained to step into these new roles. Over the past seven years, 100 women have graduated from the Army’s Ranger School and others have successfully completed Navy SEAL officer assessment and selection, proving their capabilities in even the most rigorous and challenging of assignments.
Honestly, this childish understanding of the nuances of war is just kind of pathetic, as is your understanding of history in general. I’ve gotten some good story fodder from this, but now it’s time for me to go do something else.
"Thus the immediate post-war trials did not show any particular leniency towards women. Those who were arrested received heavy sentences. But collective memory has retained only the major trial of Nuremberg, thus giving the impression that women were not involved in Nazi criminality."
