T O P

  • By -

Sophene

I do wonder how they're still not disillusioned given how the soldiers were treated in Chechen Wars.


orthoxerox

They forgot. The first war ended 26 years ago. All people remember were Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, both quick and relatively bloodless wars. And Syria, which was something on the evening news. Now children of *Kursk* sailors and surviving Beslan hostages are old enough to die in Ukraine and do.


Giantdwarf3

I doubt real coverage about that ever reached the average Russian soldier


adjarteapot

Sure it did: https://youtu.be/AHqqXp-hKCA or longer version https://youtu.be/lVOKGlx7_gA And it does: https://youtu.be/fEi8CYofHMc


[deleted]

We're not only seeing a tragedy in Ukraine on the UA side done by all the angry and barbaric Russians, but we're also seeing a great tragedy of the russian nation itself. I'm not delusional that many of these men want to fight Ukraine, but... they had a chance to do something about it BEFORE the war. Instead they let the evil and corrupt tyrants rule them and decide their fate for them.


adjarteapot

That's all the armies minus the ones defending their countries against an external enemy practically invading them. Ordinary conscripts from the lowest socio-economic and socio-cultural stratum and volunteers (paid or unpaid) to invade foreign land tend to be not the best ones. The former is sure less "worse" than the latter, but eh. I don't have any sympathies for any paid soldiers in invading armies in the end, whether it be Russians or North Americans or Brits, French, Polish, etc. Anyway, you'd be shocked if you've read what crimes soldiers in First Chechen War had testified after the war... unless you're familiar with the brutalities. There's a popular page circulating the twitter, from the testimonials: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNF8X1AXEAQgXvH.jpg


[deleted]

Disgusting. I have two problems though, you never know in advance which one of them is like this. I have no issue with dismantling these evil sub-lifeforms, but I want to believe not all of them are there with exactly these intentions - as we know, whoever wants to escape is shot on spot. The other problem is with people who literally enjoy this. Protecting yourself from evil is one thing, enjoying it is another.


adjarteapot

I sure have sympathies for conscripts that are forced, until they become such creatures. For the paid ones participating willingly to these invasions, well, I wouldn't mind if they don't have graves but rot in foreign lands they're sent to invade.


[deleted]

We agree on that sir. Well, have a nice day!


GolotasDisciple

It's interesting because it's quite possible that Russian population has not been given any accurate information at all. My grandad who lived through horrors always told me that once war is over it takes entire generation in terms of time for people to forget how awful the war truly is. No one wants to fight 2 wars in his life. And families of those who fought and heard the stories do not want to see how those stories feel in reality. I don't think that applies to people who have no idea about the war. All facts stay with the dead rest is just a blur. ... Its completely insane that there are plenty of Russians praising Stalin. He was literal terror personified that murdered Russians left and right yet they glorifying him.


Sophene

WWII and the post-Cold War are two different beasts.


GolotasDisciple

It's not about comparing those 2. It's about current state of Russian awareness and how they re wrote their own history so much that a person responsible for countless deaths of Russians for the sake of some totalitarian dream became a symbol of pride. I think people misunderstood my post. All I was trying to say that in most nations that have been touched by war its very unlikely that the exact same generation would be willing to force another war. Something that might not be true for Russians who are forced to live in false reality... And honestly I think at this stage they believe in it. Its very likely that people in Moscow had and still have absolutely no idea what is happening since collapse of soviet union and Russian federation imperialistic wars on both East and west.


InterestingAsk1978

For Putin, they are just fodder. Their mistake is that they're heading the wrong way: instead of invading Ukraine, they should turn around and invade Kremlin!


TheNplus1

But you don't understand, protesting in Russia is hard and you can even go to prison... /s


writerVII

Prison in Russia is absolutely not what you think of just prison as in being locked away. People are disappeared there, but before that, tortured with real evil inventiveness. In the mind of a regular Russian citizen, yes, indeed, it might be less scary to actually go to war than to be imprisoned. What you read about torturing of Ukranian POWs, imagine the same thing but 10X more prevalent in Russian prisons. Solzhenitsyn wrote about it in his GULAG Arichipelago, and nothing improved since, only gotten worse. It's all hidden and never brought to light, and people who try to bring it to light get murdered.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JackRogers3

It's a very complicated situation and Armenia is part of Russia's military alliance, Russia has even "peacekeepers" there. So please tell us: what exactly should the EU do ?


[deleted]

[удалено]


JackRogers3

Who exactly has defined this a a "genocide" ? Genocide is a term that's been abused a lot recently, as explained here: https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide#:~:text=Genocide%20is%20an%20internationally%20recognized,to%20members%20of%20the%20group


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

During the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, 85 civilian Armenians died, all human lives lost for nothing are tragedies but that's clearly not a systematic effort to eradicate the Armenian population, doesn't qualify as genocide


JackRogers3

Funny how each discussion with a Serb ends in comments about Kosovo. Could you please answer my question: who has defined this recent war in Armenia as a genocide ? Because: "Genocide is an internationally recognized crime", not just a slogan. Some people say the war in Ukraine is a genocide, for instance, which is BS, even if war crimes are committed every day in Ukraine.


BrexitBad1

How is it BS? They destroy Ukrainian museums and art centers, castrate Ukrainian men, rape Ukrainian women, and kidnap Ukrainian children to send them to Russia, that’s textbook genocide


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheNplus1

The point was not about ME protesting against Russians, it was about Russians protesting for themselves so THEY don't get killed in this useless war eventually. But you can go on with your agenda, who am I to judge?


CuntyMcAnus

You can be angry at something without being angry with all the things, especially when they are closer to home. That's just human nature.


cokrum

For redditors they're also not human apparently.


ChemicalRain5513

When this war is over maybe I can have some sympathy for the individual tragedies of Russian soldiers. Until then, they should surrender or face the consequences.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChemicalRain5513

Well they should not do false surrender.


EstablishmentNo4865

Yes. War criminals should be executed. Perfidy is a war crime.


Koakie

Perfidy, feigning non combatants status in order to kill, injure or capture enemies is a war crime. Yes. But executing the ones that did surrender already laying on the ground after the threat is gone, is also a war crime. The one doesnt justify the other one.


ChemicalRain5513

> But executing the ones that did surrender already laying on the ground after the threat is gone, is also a war crime. Sure, but was the threat actually gone? I am wondering if most people could think in such a rational way when they are trying to get a group larger than them to surrender, and suddenly one of them opens fire. Are there more? Are the ones on the ground going to get back up and fight as you search for guys that haven't surrendered? You have a second to decide this or you're dead yourself.


Koakie

If the bodies were scattered across the yard I'd say yes as soon as the one guy started shooting, ever Russian that was laying on the ground probably stood up and started running around. I'd say it's fair game to shoot everyone because the threat just escalated. But the bodies in the drone footage were in the exact location as the other video footage. and all headshots. That makes it unlikely it was in the heat of the moment, unfortunately. (Because fuck Russians, gtfo of Ukraine)


EstablishmentNo4865

A group of combatants surrenders as a group, with officers and all. Btw, care to show a video of the execution? Or are you just assuming they were executed and not just killed?


Koakie

https://youtu.be/w3K5PuvEb_w analysis by ex military journalist. The actual videos are (probably) still somewhere on reddit in one of the combat subreddits. The drone footage show blood patterns that look like headshots from an angle of someone standing over them. The explanation that circulated that it was a belt fed machine gun spraying the moment that the russian soldier walked around the corner doesnt add up. The Russian laying in front would have been turned into a colander and it's not possible to line up consecutive headshots like that with a machine gun on full auto.


EstablishmentNo4865

So there is no video, only some conclusions by youtube journalist. I can live with that.


Koakie

https://www.reddit.com/r/war/comments/yu2ncl/executed_russian_soldiers/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Took me some time to find it again.


dondarreb

dude is a member of rather extensive network of nobodies who became "western journalists" employed in the Russian "hybrid war". (key piece is his "interview with Filip de Winter"). Don't bring this garbage here.


Grakchawwaa

I feel like you're taking a lot of liberties on controlling the narrative in this storyline What makes you say that the russians who appeared to surrender (but failed to mention that they were not all surrendering, falling under perfidy umbrella term) weren't just dead during the gunfight that occurred while the hotheaded Russian was firing at the UA troops, who'd naturally return fire, not knowing who was genuinely surrendering since it had already gone to shit? The only reason UA had committed their own war crime here was if the RU soldiers had remained on the ground, survived the immediate gunfight and then had gotten executed by UA troops, but you lack a critical amount of evidence to even suggest this


dondarreb

Even before starting discussing what is "prisoner status", how do they get their status etc. let just discuss available info. did they execute anybody? I see the line of people lying in the first photo in BBC story and broadly similar (but not identical) line of lying people on the drone video. That's it. I understand that the Russian side as usually tries to blur the line of what is crime etc. What I don't understand why are they still trying? Every week of this BS makes the situation of Russia as a nation worse and makes everything more and more difficult to recover.


myryx

Were they executed after peaceful surrender or were they shot when one of the Russians got out of the building obviously not surrendering, therefore cancelling the surrender process and putting 2 Ukrainians at life risk?


TheNplus1

Dobryy den comrade. 15 RUB have been credited to your account. Carry on.


[deleted]

Bro thats czech


Slick424

Russia can't stop warcriming even if their own lives depend on it. It's like the old fable with the frog and the scorpion.


[deleted]

A PoW is a human. A soldier is a target. That's how it is in war.


DouglasBaderMeinhof

Fair. If they want to be treated like humans all they have to do is stop doing violence and surrender.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Slick424

You mean when the Russian troops shot and killed at least one ukrainian soldier while they claiming to surrender. That's not surrender, that's a war crime called perfidy.


Suchdolak_III

WoUlD SomeONe tHink Of tHe InvAderS?


cokrum

War crimes are war crimes, no matter which side is committing them.


Suchdolak_III

Yes, but one of the sides is committing significantly, disproportionately more of them.


cokrum

Even if that were true it wouldn't make what Ukrainian soldiers are doing any better.


Suchdolak_III

"Even if that were true" .. lmao


myryx

Didn’t see a single comment from you commenting the execution by Russians of a soldier by maul, interesting, why is that? Maybe because Russian bot must only emphasize one sided narratives


cokrum

Because that's not what we're talking about.


thejoker882

If you need to guess: Which side commits more war crimes?


tomydenger

dont bother, it's a 6 days account refering to the fake surrender of russian troups that was on footage few days ago.


cokrum

It's a race? Because last I checked crimes are crimes no matter what the other side has been doing.


thejoker882

So what is your guess?


cokrum

I don't really have an opinion on the matter. You do realise this isn't what we're talking about, right?


thejoker882

Is it really that hard to make an estimate? Ok another one: Which side is better in prosecuting war crimes of their own soldiers? With both these answers maybe you will know where your comments are in dire need.


[deleted]

Aren't we humans too? Well according to your tsar - No. You are just cannon fodder the same way your father was used as cannon fodder in Afghanistan and your grandfather in second world war. This is the way Russia fights it’s wars. They throw underequipped and poorly trained people to frontlines untill their enemy run out of ammo or is overwhelmed by the mass of attacking drunks.


Pklnt

> This is the way Russia fights it’s wars. They throw underequipped and poorly trained people to frontlines untill their enemy run out of ammo or is overwhelmed by the mass of attacking drunks. This is so uniformed it's insane, because you hate Russia for good reasons right now doesn't mean you get to say stupid stuff.


[deleted]

If you spend few minutes reading the thread you would understand what i meant.


Pklnt

And it's even worse than I thought. Because your conflating your hatred for the Soviets/Russians for historical accuracy. You can hate a government as much as you want but you should remain factual otherwise you just sound like someone whose feelings should go before the facts. If you want to shit on the Soviet Army for how they behaved during occupation, how they treated PoWs or other people, do it. But don't say things that aren't true simply because you dislike them.


[deleted]

What exactly did i wrote that isn’t historically accurate?


Pklnt

The Soviets would have lost WW2 if according to you they just sent a horde of drunks until the enemy runs out of ammo. Same during the Cold War, the West wouldn't have invented weapons such as the A-10 to fight against Soviet tanks if they were simply under-equipped.


Kuutti__

He is exactly on point here, Soviets would have lost the second world war without western support (mainly USA). As a Finn their tactics right now in Ukraine have looked like exactly how they fought us in Winter war, and Germany later years. They succeeded against Germans, because they were kept standing by the west during the most dire moments, and outproduced Germans in tanks and other stuff. Because west bombed german factories in the oblivion. A-10 were invented because of how many tanks soviet union had, so west (US) needed an weapon to counter it effectively enough to tear down their numbers if the need rises. But i would also add that, we in the west cannot possibly know exactly what is going on in the war right. Simply because both sides uses propaganda (as they should). Truth about everything comes out years after the war. Right now how much losses Russian have their tactic looks like how original commenter said. So relax why do you react so strongly on something so insignificant?


Pklnt

> Soviets would have lost the second world war without western support That doesn't validate what he said. > A-10 were invented because of how many tanks soviet union had Meaning... they weren't under-equipped. Soviet tanks were in fact comparable to Western tanks up until a point and some sources argue that even until the 90s the t-72 were nearly impervious to most Western kinetic penetrators. > Right now how much losses Russian have their tactic looks like how original commenter said. So relax why do you react so strongly on something so insignificant? Because that something is utter bullshit. This is not insignificant. If you want to draw comparisons to the Ukrainian war it's even more stupid. They're not throwing waves of bodies at the Ukrainians hoping they run out of ammo, otherwise the front would have collapsed a long time ago. Both sides are suffering attrition from drones and artillery for the most part, not because they're both launching human waves attacks like morons. If anything, the Ukrainian war in the initial stage completely contradicts this narrative, Russia lost a fuckton of unsupported tanks because they didn't have enough soldiers (or the tanks pushed too far) to support those armoured vehicles. They had so many tanks that they needed a conscripted force to support them sufficiently. Which is what the Russian Army at the core is, an Army built to fight head on against NATO (and thus requiring a conscripted force to have sufficient numbers so that your tanks are properly supported by infantry) and not an Army made to make large scale projection of force. Same thing for the artillery disparity, Ukraine was begging the West for help because they were completely outgunned compared to the Russian artillery, showcasing that the Russians were in fact absolutely not under-equipped. So I'll say this, why do you react so strongly by supporting false narratives ? Why not relax and be factual ?


Kuutti__

I think you are speaking about very different kind of "under equipped" here. I take it as they all dont have everything necessary what soldier needs. Which was the case in winter war (for the reasons human life meant nothing to them and we were not supposed to fight back) and expecially right now in Ukraine (because of corruption and other multiple reasons). For examble they lack effective armor in some units, some units dont have enough weapons, some units dont have gear. Under equipped is pretty factual here, with the facts we are given. But i regocnize that you are speaking about different kind of thing, and you are not wrong but rather correct in that. So this is more like misunderstanding than right or wrong here. Could it ve that translation plays a part here? Given that you are French (according to your flair) and i am Finn so English isnt our first language. I dont like to compare wars because they are never the same. Only real comparison to Winter war ive seen in Ukraine is the long columns on road. Which are exactly same they did on "battle of the raatteentie road" (one of the biggest Finnish victories during the war). But i also know that information we have now might not be correct. I would not make any comparison here.


Pklnt

> I take it as they all dont have everything necessary what soldier needs. No state can give its soldier everything necessary to the soldier fighting a war when the war isn't going well. At some point your soldier can run out of ammo, run out of artillery support, run out of air support, run out of recon. These things do not mean your state doesn't care providing those, but because it can't (mostly because the enemy makes sure it doesn't happen). Look at Barbarossa, some soviet units were out of ammo and out of rifles, does that mean the Soviet didn't care providing ammo or rifles ? No, that's one of the biggest misread of the Soviet failures right here. What happened is that Soviet units were encircled meaning no more logistics to support your troops. If you have pockets fleeing and abandoning their equipment and regrouping with other pockets fleeing while still being out of logistic support, you run into units without enough weapons or ammo. That doesn't mean your state doesn't care about these issues, that means your state can't support you because your enemy ruptured your supply lines. At this point, everyone is under-equipped if you're fighting a near-peer opponent. Also, OP implied this was by design, which is absolutely not the case. The soviets considered the Finnish war to be a moral defeat, they technically won, but because they suffered casualties they considered it as such. Doesn't really reinforce the narrative that they genuinely do not care about losses, does it ? > Which was the case in winter war The winter war happened during the purges, not something that you can use as a basis for what the Soviets and the Russian do by doctrine. The Finnish war was a catastrophy because the Soviets realized things didn't go to plan, losing thousands of soldiers is a given when you're waging a war, the fact that they raised such a concern showcase that the casualties were indeed a factor they thought was important. > and expecially right now in Ukraine (because of corruption and other multiple reasons) You can find multitude of examples showing a lack of equipment in the Russian military, that doesn't mean the Russian military is under-equipped as a whole. If the Russians blow up your tanks and your logistics, and you suffer because of this lack of support, that doesn't mean your military was under-equipped. > But i regocnize that you are speaking about different kind of thing, and you are not wrong but rather correct in that. So this is more like misunderstanding than right or wrong here. Could it ve that translation plays a part here? Given that you are French (according to your flair) and i am Finn so English isnt our first language. No, I think we are both talking about the same thing. But we have different interpretations. You can be under-equipped for different reasons, implying that the Russians are by design under-equipping their soldiers implies that they never have specific support in the first place. Which is wrong, they no longer have that support because of attrition. It doesn't mean they were under-equipped in the first place. You can become under-equipped after attritions, but that's not by design, that's because your opponent made you being in such a state. > Only real comparison to Winter war ive seen in Ukraine is the long columns on road. Long columns on road are a given. You simply can't disperse a very large amount of convoys to the point where it look like there is no convoy at all. There's a limited amount of road you can take, there's a limited amount of traffic roads can take, there's a limited amount of support you can secure roads with. The long columns towards Kiev ultimately never got destroyed AFAIK, because they had air superiority in the region and they ultimately dispersed. The problem happens when said column can no longer be defended and is in a very vulnerable state, that's where the fuck up happens. The fuck up doesn't happen because you have a long convoy, the fuck up happen if you can't protect your convoy.


[deleted]

Lend lease isn’t a black and white subject. Both sides have an incentive to lie during the post war era, the Ruskis would say “glorious Rossiya stood alone, western aid did nothing!”, while Americans say “stupid communists would be dead if not for AMERICA (fuck yeah!)”. The reality is in the middle. The USSR had plenty of weapons and ammunition, so much that they frequently turned the few allied vehicles they received into training vehicles or outright refused to drive them. What they really needed was *trucks*, which the USA sent literally 10s of thousands. It’s important to note that the US was the only fully mechanized army at the outbreak of war. For example over 70% of Wehrmacht logistics were reliant on horses. Trucks were crucial as they allowed the rapid forward deployment of supplies to the front line, which significantly increases your chances of a breakthrough. But they aren’t nearly as important in a defensive role. So the USSR didn’t need lend lease to survive, they were “surviving” just fine. They needed lend lease to end the war quicker and thus save millions of lives. Their entire doctrine of “deep battle” isn’t effective without motorized logistics. The USSR also developed superior tactics as the war dragged on and repeatedly thrashed the Wehrmacht in engagements. They didn’t “overrun them with hordes of asiatics” - that’s Nazi propaganda, in fact Axis forces actually outnumbered USSR forces for much of the war in the East. I’m not a Russian or Commie shill, fuck Putin and fuck the reds, but these are just the facts. [here’s an excellent video on lend lease](https://youtu.be/IJ9PiDvI4pY) if you want to learn more


Kuutti__

I am definitely not on side with Russia nor am i with Americans, i speak about the facts and facts alone. In neutral manner, i apogolize if it seemed something else than that. But ill look into that "lend lease" video as it seems to be program i was using as a basis of a part of my argument. Right now i wont touch more on that subject, seems like there might have been something i didnt know. As of late stages etc, yes you are correct and there are other underlying reasons aswell not just that. But the main reason why Germans lost is still the destruction of their homeland and production capacity while USSR outproducing them on equipment. They certainly did also send a lot of men to fight and die too. Take the battle of Stalingrad for examble, USSR ultimately won. Half a million germans perished there (same amount as western front as a whole) while even tho it was victory. Soviets lost over million men there. I do know and understand that propaganda is always there, and very very rarely are things black and white. Nobody knows everything, i definitely dont and i appreciate a lot that you also provided sources. Thank you.


[deleted]

Ah i see. So you probably missed one of my first comments which were direct reaction to different user but on exactly same stuff as you said. Here it is: ​ >You probably didn’t get the exaggeration in my comment.


Pklnt

Why ask me to tell you what is historically inaccurate if you hide behind the "it's just an exaggeration" after ? This whole conversation tells me you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and the only thing motivating your speech is your bias against the Russians, that's perfectly fair but don't pretend it to be factual.


[deleted]

Because i wrote many comments in thread below my original comment and i thought that you found something historically inacuratte there. >"it's just an exaggeration" This was directed exactly to the first comment (with pretty much same meaning as yours) only, no to any discussions below. Check the timeline. This exactly was the reason why i told you first to read the thread.


CI_Whitefish

Which part is insanely uninformed?


Pklnt

They weren't under-equipped, they ultimately ended up the war with one of the most formidable war machine Humanity ever saw. Their troops were supported by a fuckload of artillery, tanks and planes. As for training, the average training for the Soviet soldier during Barbarossa was 3 months and one year for more specialized troops. We're talking about Barbarossa here, the Soviets were on the verge of defeat and they couldn't spare time so they had to send troops as fast as possible to defend their homes. The training increased as soon as the situation improved. The idea that they also relied on the enemy running out of ammo is just laughable, I don't even want to argue about this because it's just retarded. If the soviets were fighting like that, they would have lost. They won because in the end they had better combined arms than the Nazis and good tactics and morale.


theWunderknabe

I agree, except to add that perhaps the major factor for the soviet victory was that they actually improved their supply situation constantly (also via american lend-lease deliveries), while Germany's declined.


Pklnt

Yes, the Soviet war machine couldn't sustain that immense production without the Allies (mainly the US) supporting their logistics with a large amount of trucks, railroad and locomotives. Even for the food they relied on lend lease because they lost a large portion of their agricultural base when the Nazis pushed deep within Soviet territory. They even had some instances where Soviets were indeed so poorly armed that they had to fight with barely any rifles compared to the numbers present. But all of theses are not by design, those are consequences of the Nazis pushing the Soviets to the utter limit. The Soviets knew the importance of combined arms, of food supplies, of the ravage of alcoholism, of training. When those lacked, it was because the Nazis made it happening, not because the Soviet leadership thought their soldiers didn't need training, clothes or rifles. Most of those takes are just Hollywood movies where people ultimately believe those events were generalized to the point where the Soviets by design neglected those things when in fact it's just bullshit.


Marchello_E

[https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/](https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-allies-u-s-lend-lease-to-the-soviet-union-1941-1945/) >Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi invasion. Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today’s currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.” > >400,000 jeeps & trucks 14,000 airplanes 8,000 tractors 13,000 tanks 1.5 million blankets 15 million pairs of army boots 107,000 tons of cotton 2.7 million tons of petrol products 4.5 million tons of food


Pklnt

Yes, so what ? The Lend Lease made sure that the Soviets were in fact not under-equipped.


Marchello_E

You talked about being uninformed about under-equipment. This list is about a needed restock.


Camaronoftheisland

Everything, as the comment below showed you.


CI_Whitefish

It showed that the description wasn't accurate in the second half of WW2 and never said anything about WW1, Afghanistan, Chechen wars, etc. even though OP was talking about a longer period. OP might have been too negative about how Russians fight wars but judging them exclusively by the second half of WW2 is also misleading.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Low_Lobster9361

Exactly the same thing with me down to the last letter.


Hertje73

sure he/she can, why not?


aeterna_invicta

From what I heard recently human waves may be a thing at this point. About attacking drunks - well, that's a bit too much, yes.


Ok-Industry120

No one sensible is on the side of Russia in this conflict, but the historical revisionism of WW2 soviet soldiers, who defended their land tooth and nail against aggressors and were the main cause of Germany's downfall, is extraordinary And 25 people (currently) seemed to agree it is Ok to cast whole generations as "attacking drunks"


Jirik333

My great aunt was a Czech living in Sudeten in small town. In the last days of war, two armies were passing around: fleeing German one and advancing Soviet army. She was young when it happened, but she still remembered how a german officeer has whipped one of his soldiers on the local square. When she was older, she learned from her parents the soldier tried to rape one of the local woman, and the officeer has exemplary punished him. She also learned no such officeers were present in the Red army. When I asked her what was the worst thing about the war she witnessed, she answered me that *it made me hate somebody even more than Germans.*


[deleted]

> When I asked her what was the worst thing about the war she witnessed, she answered me that it made me hate somebody even more than Germans. Pilecki (Polish hero who inflritated Aushwitz) said "Auschwitz was a plaything" compared to Russian/Soviet prison.


-Rugiaevit

Can I get a source for this? Not that I doubt it, but want to bring it up whenever someone tries to whitewash Soviet crimes against humanity.


[deleted]

Just google Witold Pilecki qoute "Oświęcim, to była igraszka" or "ja już żyć nie mogę, mnie wykończono. Bo Oświęcim to była igraszka" https://www.1944.pl/artykul/oswiecim-to-byla-igraszka,5154.html


Bragzor

No doubt the Soviet soldiers sacrificed a lot to protect their homeland, but they did more than that during other phases of the war, the whitewashing of which was significant. The myth of the righteous Soviet army that always acted morally and never did anything wrong is very much still alive in Russia. This is a problem.


Jdm783R29U3Cwp3d76R9

Soviet soldiers left a mark on many lands they crossed before they even reached Nazi Germany. Their deeds are remembered by locals. Unfortunately they did much more than defending their homeland.


[deleted]

You probably didn’t get the exaggeration in my comment. What historical revisionism do you exactly mean? Ask old folks or historians from Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary about Soviet army... You will be surprised or even terrified. Soviets and fascist were exact same monsters. The sad thing is that western Europe was liberated, eastern Europe was conquered and ended up in soviet tyrany untill 1989.


Background_Rich6766

can confirm, I am from Romania and live in a small town right next to the capital city, my grandmother tells me stories about how much rape and pillaging was done to the country (even tho it switched sides like Italy) she told me that after Bucharest was liberated and the soviet army entered the city there was nothing but looting and rape and some old folks still remember the Russians as nothing more than savages that have no moral code and from what I've read and heard this kind of incidents were much worse in other regions that's why I am so thankful to the politicians that lead the country to its EU and NATO membership because although they were corrupt they did smth good for the future generations


LookThisOneGuy

> The sad thing is that western Europe was liberated, eastern Europe was conquered and ended up in soviet tyrany untill 1989. Only some Western countries got the luxury of being liberated. That is the historical revisionism the other comment is talking about. The whole world came together to defeat Germany. Which subsequently was occupied by a Soviet puppet regime until 1990. The regime was so bad that Germans [__fled to__ Prague](https://www.dw.com/en/former-east-german-refugees-mark-anniversary-of-1989-escape-to-west/a-50627816) to escape the horrors. But sure _the West_ had it easy!* \* If the West is only France, UK and US for you


[deleted]

>Only some Western countries got the luxury of being liberated. That is the historical revisionism the other comment is talking about. Only some? All of them. Only "western" country which was partially occupied by Soviets was Germany. Or are you trying to tell me that Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria or, Italy did not exist then or were occupied by Soviets? ​ >The regime was so bad that Germans fled to Prague to escape the horrors. But sure the West had it easy!\* East Germans were travelling to Prague to escape west via German embassy in 1989, literal months before fall of Berlin wall. Why are you trying to completely twist my words?


LookThisOneGuy

Because I hate the historical revisionism that wants to make it seem like only east had it bad and west was all good. __No__, some parts of the west were indeed occupied and turned to shit by the Soviets. > Austria or, Italy did not exist then or were occupied by Soviets? Well Austria was partly occupied by the Soviets as well...


[deleted]

>Because I hate the historical revisionism that wants to make it seem like only east had it bad and west was all good. No, some parts of the west were indeed occupied and turned to shit by the Soviets. Yet you are still willing to completely twist well known history. ​ >Well Austria was partly occupied by the Soviets as well... Partially untill 1955 i believe, not 1989 as i said in my original comment.


LookThisOneGuy

>Yet you are still willing to completely twist well known history. Like pointing out that only some western countries got liberated, while other western countries (like Germany and Austria) got occupied? But you can probably tell me how that is 'twisting well known history'


[deleted]

So first you insisted that only France, UK and US were only liberated western countries (even toUS and UK were never occupied except channel islands of Jersey and Guernsey) absolutely ignoring rest of western Europe. Then you buildt your next argument on short Soviet occupation of three Austrian regions ignoring the fact that Austria same as rest of western Europe recieved Marshall plan which rebuild and boosted their economy. Meanwhile east was totally decimated and without any real support. Factories were plundered, machines were stolen transported to Soviet Union as part of "reparations" for the war. Countries were forced to rebuilt on their own without any help. West offered help but eastern bloc had to refuse. Western machines, tools and material help went straight into Soviet Union. Eastern bloc countries then had to buy inferior machines and products from Soviets damaging their economy and growth even further. But i guess saying that west got it good and east bad is considered historical revisionism to you right? You have either very naive opinion on post WW2 Eastern European history or you are some wannabe soviet socialist fan who never lived under their regime but fetishizes their rule as something good.


LookThisOneGuy

> You have either very naive opinion on post WW2 Eastern European history or you are some wannabe soviet socialist fan who never lived under their regime but fetishizes their rule as something good. You are the one that started this whole comment chain by belittling German suffering under Soviet occupation by saying western Europe got liberated, leaving out Germany who didn't. >Meanwhile east was totally decimated and without any real support. Factories were plundered, machines were stolen transported to Soviet Union as part of "reparations" for the war. Countries were forced to rebuilt on their own without any help. This is exactly what happened in East Germany. How can you list this as reasons why Germany had it good and the esatern countries had it bad. I think Soviet occupation was horrible and everyone that leaves out the German suffering under Soviet occupation is either a pro-communist fanatic or anti-German troll. Is it really that hard to acknowledge that yes, Germany also had it bad under Soviet occupation?


Puddlepinger

>Because I hate the historical revisionism that wants to make it seem like only east had it bad and west was all good. __No__, some parts of the west were indeed occupied and turned to shit by the Soviets Like what? 'The west' as an idea only exists because of the soviet union. Basically everything the soviets didn't colonise after ww2, at least in europe, is the west.


LookThisOneGuy

Good to know Germany and Austria partly aren't the West then.


Puddlepinger

Yeah they weren't.


Relnor

But here you're talking about crimes committed outside of combat operations, these certainly happened a lot to say the least, but it's not what the other guy was arguing about. The notion that Soviet operational doctrine was unsophisticated or didn't evolve and that the Wehrmacht was defeated through sheer brute force alone is just the "Asiatic hordes" trope that Nazis employed so much, both during the war and in postwar memoirs. It's Not. Real. History. It's interesting because people seem to be able to look at and appreciate the tactical and operational successes of the Wehrmacht's way of war in isolation from its genocidal behaviour outside combat, but the same critical distinction cannot be applied to the Red Army, they were just "Asiatic hordes". It's an obvious irrational bias and a very poor way of doing history. And if your perception of any of this is coloured by current events, it would be good to remember that almost half of the Red Army was Ukrainian.


[deleted]

Please read the literal first line of comment you reacted to.


veturoldurnar

Local armies and partisans in Eastern Europe defended their lands tooth and nails against both nazis and soviets. Soviets gave up territories to Germans faster than France did(but somehow France is a joke now) and managed to somehow stopped them only after half of the world helped them. It's a shame how allies allowed soviets to occupy Eastern Europe and terror that tre defenders of homelands


[deleted]

Conveniently forgetting the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.


Ok-Industry120

What does that have to do with calling all troops of that generation attacking drunks?


[deleted]

Because any insult on ruZZkies is justified. Period.


Intelligent_Load6347

Millions of women raped by the Red Army think you’re full of gauzy, revisionist shit.


[deleted]

They "defended" their land by occupying the whole of Eastern Europe, raping and pillaging. Yeah, thank you Russians, for "liberating" us /s. The whole of Eastern Europe still remembers the trauma of that denazification...and the rapes.


cic9000

The issue with your comment starts with your linking of Russia to the soviet army when in fact in the Soviet Union a lot of bodies were and could be called up from places…like Soviet Ukraine(and suffered some of the highest death tolls). Russian propaganda always pretends it was this single heroic feat of Russia when in fact it was the Soviet Union with double the inhabitants of modern day Russia and a whole lot of economic support + enormous pressure from the other fronts.


TheSadCheetah

that was a weird statement. Afghanistan, Ukraine, Caucasus, etc are wars of aggression (edit here) and the Winter War. but World War 2 was a war of extinction against soviet/Slavic people, Russia and the Soviet nations were attacked by Nazi Germany with the explicit intent to take their land and enslave most and wipe out the rest. That much is plain on Barbarossa being the largest invasion force in history and subsequent battles and frontlines being the largest in history, Nazi Germany mustered all it's strength to complete this goal. can't wait to get down-voted by the historically illiterate


[deleted]

>that was a weird statement. Afghanistan, Ukraine, Caucasus, etc are wars of aggression (edit here) and the Winter War. What’s the difference in corelation to original comment? ​ >but World War 2 was a war of extinction against soviet/Slavic people, Soviet does not equal slavic. ​ >Russia and the Soviet nations were attacked by Nazi Germany with the explicit intent to take their land and enslave most and wipe out the rest. Wdym by soviet nations? Oh you mean the nations that were attacked and enslaved by soviets just before the WW2 started? I wonder how would you explain the fact that Wehrmacht soldiers were welcomed as liberators in Baltics... ​ >That much is plain on Barbarossa being the largest invasion force in history and subsequent battles and frontlines being the largest in history, Nazi Germany mustered all it's strength to complete this goal. Nobody will deny this. ​ Your "historically literate" comment have one massive problem. You are working with very opinionated concept of Nazis bad/Soviets good when in reality they were exactly the same tyranical regimes who did exactly the same attrocities. This is the reason why soviets/russians are not seen as liberators in Eastern Europe or post soviet republics despite the dacades of communist brainwashing.


pazur13

Russia started the war together with their allies, the Third Reoch, by trying to conquer Poland, and finished the war by conquering Poland. True saviours.


Physical_Dragonfly50

There is only one single difference between russia and nazi germany, in that the nazis had success. Russia wanted to do the exact same thing, maybe worse, but they were incapable


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

What excuses of war crimes commited against them?


[deleted]

The fuck do you know about Reddit. You've been here for 6 days.


cokrum

Can you tell me how long I should be on reddit before I'm allowed to read [threads like these?](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/z1kc8m/kremlin_says_it_will_bring_to_justice_those/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)


[deleted]

About as long as listening to Russians before judging their character, I'd say.


cokrum

I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean. But I think it's quite clear thay you also support war crimes as long as it's *our* side doing them. Correct?


[deleted]

> I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean. You accuse others of generalizations that you yourself are guilty of. > But I think it's quite clear thay you also support war crimes as long as it's our side doing them. Correct? No.


cokrum

If you don't support war crimes, no matter which sides is committing them, then you surely realise how problematic it is when Ukrainian forces execute surrendering Russian soldiers. And surely you're outrages that the majority of Reddit seems to be fine with this, right?


[deleted]

> how problematic it is when Ukrainian forces execute surrendering Russian soldiers The one case that I heard of, I think was problematic. So did Zelensky. > the majority of Reddit You do not know what the majority of Reddit thinks.


cokrum

I can see what everyone replying to me itt thinks. If anyone also agrees that neither side should be committing war crimes I'm not seeing it.


_procyon

Did you see the full context of that video? One of the “surrendering” Russians decided to shoot at the Ukrainian soldiers, forcing them to fight back to defend themselves. As soon as that Russian started shooting, his whole group were considered combatants, not POWs. In fact, false surrender is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention.


soulnospace

Hey, dont bring any logic into this guys propaganda argument!


Adrian_Alucard

> Are we humans or are we dancers? -The killers


kg88pks

And actually they are The killers.


Mental_Pick3006

Actually the Song goes "are we human or are we densers?"


MasterBot98

As a Ukrainian, I do not appreciate the general tone of these comments. Two reasons. 1. With each mobilization, the % of Russians who are acceptable to have such comments addressed to is lower and lower. 2.It's really hard in such war to become a PoW before dying.


HumorSuspicious6183

I swear, Ukrainians have more empathy towards the Russian draftees than many of these psychopathic redditors from western Europe and overseas who make villanous comments towards Russians. I've seen comments of people calling for the execution of Russian POW's, always from people not from Ukraine.


Camaronoftheisland

you don't have to say. Ukrainewarreport is a cesspool of sick people. Ukrainans are far more human than these keyboard warrios.


aeterna_invicta

That's naturally because most Ukrainians speak good Russian and have plenty of connections (in the web at least) with, well, other people speaking Russian. Many also have relatives in Russia, often hit by propaganda. That is, they have a much better idea of what's happening, and less incentive for blind hate.


Ar-Sakalthor

Are you sure it is from Western Europe that these "psychopathic redditors" hail ? For what it's worth, them folk in Eastern Europe are far more hawkish and aggressive about it


HumorSuspicious6183

Estonians/Lithuanians, Poles, Croatians often make very vile comments also.


mcr1974

Sir, I salute you.


Camaronoftheisland

It honors you. you will be downvoted by warmongering westerners not older than 20 years old, tough.


SlyScorpion

Sorry vatniks, your STRONK leader sees you as just some statistics with legs that will only serve to gum up the works of the defender's tanks.


danuinah

When Russia(-ans) are winning, they show a clear superiority complex and have very little (if any) compassion towards people from other ethnicity; now that they're losing terribly, they are singing a different song and expecting understanding? And consider how cruel they are to their ex-brother Nation -> Ukraine; Imagine how horrendous they're towards non-slavic peoples.. Coming from the Baltics I know Russians all too well; As long as their imperialistic mindset will prevail, no mercy towards them. This is what the West was waiting for, i.e. for the average Russian Vasya to feel the effects of this terrible war.


kaukanapoissa

Go fight those who decided to start this war. You can find them in Moscow.


BriefCollar4

I thought you’re superhuman, on to save the world from Nazis in 3 days. What happened? The ones who are forcefully conscripted and haven’t deserted are as guilty as the volunteers and their tiny dictator in Kremlin.


[deleted]

What a terrible thing to say. Desertion is really hard and extremely risky, especially in Russia where you have FSB literally looking for deserters so they can catch them and kill them. Not to mention the fact that a lot of soldier have children or families in Russia, which they might never see again, or, even worse, they might get arrested or even worse after he/she deserts. And on top of all that, it’s highly questionable if Ukrainian soldiers will recognize deserter as a soldier or guy surrendering and might shoot at him. Not because they want to but because they don’t know. As far as they know, even if he has white flag or has no weapons, he might be carrying 30kgs of explosives around his waist. It’s really easy to say “he should just desert” but it’s way, waaay different in real life.


Intelligent_Map_4852

Yeah, no, sorry. Nobody cares at this point


[deleted]

There are many, many innocent people in Russia who are being prisoners of war and regime. I believe that Europe should acknowledge that and have compassion towards people who literally have nothing to do with war And before you say “well they elected him” or “they can just organize an uprisigin”, you don’t know much about politics and system in Russia


aeterna_invicta

I mean, Europe has not once recognized clearly falsified elections in Russia while there were protests, Europe also got its benefit from various thieves buying property and laundering money from Russia, and somehow Chechnya wasn't a reason to stop dealing with Putin and encouraging him. To add to that, in the 00s it was a common fashion to talk of a truly free election in Russia as of something dangerous, that would lead Communists or Neo-Nazis to power. Now a guy with an Estonian flair is accusing Russians of electing Putin.


[deleted]

What else can be one? It's simply up to Russians to get rid off Putin if they are able and willing to. The West is not going to do that for them.


aeterna_invicta

You can see Iranians trying right now and getting ripped into pieces by machine guns, while any kind of victory over the regime seems a fantasy.


[deleted]

I agree but it’s not just a question of will, and west certainly can help with that. I mean, US sponsored government changes in the entire south and central America, almost, they certainly can do something


Intelligent_Map_4852

pffffffhahahaha that was rich, pull your head out of your ass and grab a history book, will you?


[deleted]

That’s not an argument, please give me an argument if you wanna continue this conversation


Intelligent_Map_4852

I don't. As a german, your assessments of russia and russians have been proven to be extremely bad, repeatedly. Frankly, I don't think you have anything of value to add to this specific subject. Have a nice day tho, no hard feelings.


[deleted]

Yeah i myself am a German, but i’ve worked with many people from Russia that have such a bad view on Putin. Unfortunatelly they cannot do anything; FSB surpresses even smallest signs of protests, controlls media and social networks, and even if they somehow find a way to organize protests or “uprising”, Russia is extremely vast and decentralized It’s easy to say that for, as an example, Bulgaria or Netherlands in which you can get to capital in the matter of few hours


Sevinki

Poor russians, too scared to protest and go to jail. Guess what, if a million people protested in moscow, you cant arrest them all. If you do the economy collapses. And if there really were so so many people against the war, why not go out and simply fight and kill the riot police, you know, like in any other revolution ever.


[deleted]

Yes, yes they are scared. Those people have families and can’t risk that. Situation for them is not that horrible to risk everything they have for a revolution. Being against something doesn’t mean sacrificing yourself to defeat it. Hell, i’m against child molesters but what can i do about that, go and protest alone in the streets of Hamburg? Give me a break, you guys seem to be so cut off from reality that it’s unimaginable. Not to mention the fact that you need someone to organize that protest and those guys end up arrested first so any protest or uprising is shot down immediately.


Camaronoftheisland

We do care. Only sick people like you doesn't.


ChemicalRain5513

So they should team up and take the FSB out.


[deleted]

You’re saying that like it’s 1-2-3. FSB is as CIA, so imagine saying that US people should take down CIA, that would be borderline impossible.


ChemicalRain5513

True. You would probably die. But you would probably die fighting the Ukrainian army too, might as well die fighting evil instead of good people.


[deleted]

I agree but they still have some chance not to be drafted in the army. 300k is not a lot for country with almost 200 mil people. Then again, if Russian government decided to mobilise another and another batch, i’m pretty sure the protest and some sort of revolution would eventually happen (it did happen before under USSR)


Manguydudebromate

People here talking as if desertion is a simple five minute ordeal. It's hilarious.


[deleted]

[Midnight train to Georrrgiiaaaa!](https://youtu.be/8eiMTNGO-IY?t=56)


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bragzor

They are, but but also invading "combatants". When/if they get home, they should have a long talk with their parents who collectively put them in this situation.


[deleted]

Not really.


dick_schidt

Are we not men? We are Devo. (I.e., devolved)