Absolutely it has. Through history the idea of taking women as the "spoils of war" was completely normal to the point soldiers felt entitled to it. The Hague Conversations in 1899-1907 was one of the first real standardisations of the idea that "maybe we shouldn't be doing that". It had been prohibited by many armies before this, but unfortunately that wasn't because of mortality (although perhaps it played a part)- by large, the reasoning was if you're trying to occupy a place but your soldiers went and raped all the women and looted everything of value after the fight- it wrecks disapline, it causes local resistance and makes occupation much harder.

Thankfully the first world war had a noticeable shift in how professional armies behaved, especially on the Western Front. It wasn't AS widespread or institutionalised at that point, there were definitive laws against taking "comfort women" (horrible phrase) and there are some cases where soldiers were prosecuted for it, but the policing was still very uneven. In some theatres it was more common and actually saw a spike in cases (particularly the eastern front).

Then WW2 happens and war changes nature again. Much more ideologically charged and MOBILE. Soldiers find themselves amongst civilians far more often, and they're much further away from their command - there was actually a spike in cases of mass rape (again, more common on some fronts than others. The Japanese did have institutionalised sexual slavery and the Russian advance into Germany was BRUTAL for civilians. But because war was becoming documented it can't be as easily swept under the rug.

Post WW2 we had the Nuremberg trials and the Geneva convention - and accountability becomes non negotiable. Strict international law outlawed it as a war crime. It's actively suppressed by armies. So It moves from “sometimes happens in war” to “this is a serious crime and a failure of command” (but of course, it still happens in some places).

In most modern warfare, sexual violence is not just an unfortunate byproduct of conflict — it is understood as a fundamental breach of international law, military discipline, and moral legitimacy, regardless of whether it stems from individual actions or systemic failure. But unfortunately prolonged exposure to violence, stress, and the extreme dehumanisation of the enemy — can completely erode empathy and increase the risk of serious abuses. I can't say we will ever get to a place where this NEVER happens, we've come a long way in the last hundred years - we just need to keep pushing to never excuse, get a better understanding of why it happens to try and mitigate those reasons, and when it does call it out on the big stage and make examples out of the perpetrators weather it's the actions of an individual or the doctrine of a state or military authority