Red army - army of criminals?

Well, then it will be discussion like "my propaganda vs your propaganda", I suppouse.

I got no propaganda running in my head, just different history books opened and different stories about the same war in mind, when i read your post it just seems you don't speak about the same war as everyone here, trying to glorifiy what shouldn't be glorified. Don't think you got all the knowledge in the world about russian army during WW2, a real historian would laugh at you


Oh and by the way, i hope you never say this in real life, you could be in serious trouble, that's revisionism sir

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2016, 22:04 PMMissCommissar

Good news for you - there are no "criminals" on war, actually, in our everyday understanding of that word, we don't talk about "military crimes" now. There are no civil rules, just can't be. All those conventions, morale cryings of naive politics/hippies and all that bullshit - just dissapers after first hours of real war for people. Rape, steal, murdering and killing civilians - can't say, that it is all OK, but that's how things on all wars goes. It's understandable.

Oh and by the way, i hope you never say this in real life, you could be in serious trouble, that's revisionism sir

Well, why not? There is nothing wrong in constatation of fact, that war is much more different place and world, than our everyday peaceful life. There are another morals, rules, cases...

Germans killed civilans because they had order to deal with "sub-humans" on occupied territories and sometime after - for to stop partisans. Are we going to judge simple soldier, who should submit orders for not to be punished, or who don't want to die while he sleep from partisan's raid? In that case, soldier is not criminal - criminals are those, who gave the order - politics.

Same for soviets. I don't say, that there were no "crimes" made by Red Army on libirated terrirories.There were rapes, were murderings of civils... That all happend. But, soviet high command fought against it very strict and hard. For all those crimes soldiers and officiers could be executed without court or tribunal. But it still happend, because soldiers are also humans. Some of soldiers could gone mad of that power, which armed man has on unarmed civilian, some soldiers just wanted to do revenge for lost families and friends, some saw in Europe people traitors, supporters of Reich, who also should be punished... That all was pretty individual and subjective.

I don't say, that I SUPPORT all those acts. I just trying not to judge people, who fought, who lived in war for years, saw deaths and unreasoable violence every day... I'm sure, that we just don't have a right to judge them, no matter how bad their acts were.

Even then they had a week of training, but thats neither here nor there considering that the game is set in 1944 when the soviets actually had time to train their men.

It wasn't set in 1944, i even dare to say not in 1943, it is clearly early soviet army with poor training, partisans, irregulars and, suddenly, penal battalions, which gets late war tanks for balance reason. If anything, late sov army should be more like OKW with 5 vet levels, plenty of automatic weapons and outstanding tanks. But what we have is clearly not represents undisputable soviet might of hardened late war veterans.

BS

Read the spoiler.

Germans killed civilans because they had order to deal with "sub-humans" on occupied territories and sometime after - for to stop partisans. Are we going to judge simple soldier, who should submit orders for not to be punished, or who don't want to die while he sleep from partisan's raid? In that case, soldier is not criminal - criminals are those, who gave the order - politics.

Well first i let you know that all german troops weren't nazi, the ones that killed, the Einsatzgruppen in this case and others SS division shoudn't get the right to be called germans, you talk like all german soldiers freely and happily killed civilians, sure, some civilians massacre happened, like soviet ones, American ones and british and french ones did.

And as for your opinion on the criminals, we can also say that Stalin killed way more people than hitler did, but people still glorify him , pretty ironic

Same for soviets. I don't say, that there were no "crimes" made by Red Army on libirated terrirories.There were rapes, were murderings of civils... That all happend. But, soviet high command fought against it very strict and hard. For all those crimes soldiers and officiers could be executed without court or tribunal. But it still happend, because soldiers are also humans. Some of soldiers could gone mad of that power, which armed man has on unarmed civilian, some soldiers just wanted to do revenge for lost families and friends, some saw in Europe people traitors, supporters of Reich, who also should be punished... That all was pretty individual and subjective.

I don't say, that I SUPPORT all those acts. I just trying not to judge people, who fought, who lived in war for years, saw deaths and unreasoable violence every day... I'm sure, that we just don't have a right to judge them, no matter how bad their acts were.

Like all armies in the world, High command punished hard every of those acts, don't think it was only in the soviet high command, i remeber stories about American soldier getting executed for rape, and same for German soldiers. But still it doesn't excuse any army from the crimes they commited

Okay so if we follow your way of thinking we don't have the tight to judge what hitler did, we don't have the right to judge order 227, we don't have the right to judge Stalin, Mussolini and others men who send people to their death ?

Same for soviets. I don't say, that there were no "crimes" made by Red Army on libirated terrirories.There were rapes, were murderings of civils... That all happend. But, soviet high command fought against it very strict and hard. For all those crimes soldiers and officiers could be executed without court or tribunal. But it still happend, because soldiers are also humans. Some of soldiers could gone mad of that power, which armed man has on unarmed civilian, some soldiers just wanted to do revenge for lost families and friends, some saw in Europe people traitors, supporters of Reich, who also should be punished... That all was pretty individual and subjective.

That's some serious sophistry there.

I'm sorry but the crimes perpetrated by many in the Red Army were exactly that - crimes. I'm fascinated by the Red Army's story, it is incredible what it goes through, yet that doesn't mean I'm not blind to the fact that rapes and tacitly sanctioned looting were widespread. Sure there wasn't a deliberate policy on the part of Stalin, but it remains that the Red Army is guilty of many terrible crimes.

Sure there are explanations, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they are crimes.

I might want to add that being in a Soviet penal battalion doesn´t necessarily mean "criminal"... unless you consider thinking independent or simply having tough luck a crime.

Okay so if we follow your way of thinking we don't have the tight to judge what hitler did, we don't have the right to judge order 227, we don't have the right to judge Stalin, Mussolini and others men who send people to their death ?

I can explain and understand Hitler's anger. Europe rised their killer by their own hands, cos Germany after WWI was country with no reputation, country, which everyone could humiliate and insult... Only few countries supported Germany those days with keeping normal diplomacy and trade relations, one of them was USSR, lol. Of course, people of Germany could not take it too long, and they choose on democratic elections man, who said, that he will make Germany great again, and will punish all those jews in Europe, who fucked his great country since 20s. Although, that was not jews, but mindless europian politics, who couldn't predict consequences of their actions about Germany.

Whatever happens next is terrible, most horrific war in world's history. But... it was inevitable. So, yes, we can say, that Hitler was terrible, bad, no excuse for that tyran... but we shouldn't forget reasons of that. Only combined understanding of historic actions AND their reasons gives us most objective understanding of history.

Order 227 was made, for to keep soldier's morale in difficult times of 42-43, when it was important to hold the line 'till the last. And that order wasn't so terryfing, like Relic shown us in campaign or western "objective" histroics write. Nobody shooted in soldier's backs with Maxims, nobody shooted soldiers, who ignored the order, but still did right thing. They could be punished, yes, but not exectued. And of course, nobody shooted retreating soldiers, because any reasoable commander understands, how important it is too keep your manpower alive. So, that shit about "Order 227" is mostly western progapanda.

I don't also judge Stalin or Mussolini. That idea, that "Stalin killed more than Hitler" is right only in numbers, but nobody talks about reasons and results. Whatever Stalin did it just made USSR harder. Just in 5 years poor farmer's country was turned into massive industrial beast. All that industry, later, provide to Red Army all that strenght, that stopped Hitler's forces and pushed them back into their lair and killed there. Yea, a lot of innocent people died, a lot of political prioners were... But soviet lived in hard times, USSR got hard lider, that could make hard, but important desicions.

And there is nothing wrong in sending "men to death" in politics, because - it is politics. As future officer myself I understand it. No matter how good men under your command you have you should understand 1 thing - they are in real war just expendable material, resourse, like oil or money. It's your job, as commander, as leader, as leader of entire country to use and spend those resourses right, for to get results. Nobody can judge you for you doing your job, but you can be judged for doing your job wrong. Stalin did a lot of wrong things in 1941-42, nobody excueses him for that. But still, he won that war, he saved our country, liberated Europe from nazi, captured Berlin.

So, I think, Stalin used all his resourses pretty well, if we will look on results.

I can explain and understand Hitler's anger. Europe rised their killer by their own hands, cos Germany after WWI was country with no reputation, country, which everyone could humiliate and insult... Only few countries supported Germany those days with keeping normal diplomacy and trade relations, one of them was USSR, lol. Of course, people of Germany could not take it too long, and they choose on democratic elections man, who said, that he will make Germany great again, and will punish all those jews in Europe, who fucked his great country since 20s. Although, that was not jews, but mindless europian politics, who couldn't predict consequences of their actions about Germany.

This is the best.

This is the best.

Yea, agree Actually, that's why they call Trump "American Hitler", lol.

But... You know what word "Volks" means, right? Volksgrenadeers and Volkssturm groups were pretty same german "conscripts". Wehrmacht tried to put there as much as possible experienced soldiers, who were injured or doesn't have good health qualities at all, but in late war casualteis were so big - there weren't enough of them. So, they conscripted a lot of civians, who absouletely never fought and had 0 combat experience, passed them through fast combat training, gave them not bad equipment and then sent on frontlines.

But in game, Volksgrenadeers performs veery good, way better than soviet conscripts. Sometimes even better, than usual grenadeers.

Soviet soldiers, from other side, in 1944-45 had really good combat experience after all those years of war. New conscripted soldiers also were trained and trained good - USSR did have time for training soldiers in 1944-45. But not conscripts were real core of Red Army in 1944-45, they had a lot of real good soldiers in action, passed through bunch of campaings and combats. So, mainline infantry of USSR supoused to be not "0-experienced coscripts", but good and tough soldiers, they could call them "Strelki". That was OK to throw unexperienced boys on combat in first years of war, when really mostly all professional army was wiped in first mounths and USSR had to defend itself really hard. But... when counterattack started - that was absolutelty unnecesary.

That perfect combat experience, also, was shown in crushing Japan "Kwantung Army" - biggest Japan army group - by soviet troops in only 1 mounth! 1 mounth!!! Compare it with US army achivments on Okinawa - years of fighing on shiity islands without serious results. Here 1 mounth - and entire Japan army crushed and pushed back from China. That's about "0 exerienced soviet soldiers" in late war.

P.S. Here is some "soviet propaganda" for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgKazTrhXmI&list=RDzgKazTrhXmI#t=9. For you could understand POWER OF TEH MOTHERLAAAAAND!!!

You know that there is a difference between Volksgrenadieren and Volkssturm right?
And a quite big one!

Order 227 was made, for to keep soldier's morale in difficult times of 42-43, when it was important to hold the line 'till the last. And that order wasn't so terryfing, like Relic shown us in campaign or western "objective" histroics write. Nobody shooted in soldier's backs with Maxims, nobody shooted soldiers, who ignored the order, but still did right thing. They could be punished, yes, but not exectued. And of course, nobody shooted retreating soldiers, because any reasoable commander understands, how important it is too keep your manpower alive. So, that shit about "Order 227" is mostly western progapanda.

You act so hard to deny the truth it is so funny, one day if you are an officer i suggest you make a trip to the nearest military archives, it will be painful at first to be infront of the truth but for now on, please don't even try to deny what is written on official documents around the world, you just insulted the work of russian historians and you spit on the graves of those who died by NKVD section during order 227

And there is nothing wrong in sending "men to death" in politics, because - it is politics. As future officer myself I understand it. No matter how good men under your command you have you should understand 1 thing - they are in real war just expendable material, resourse, like oil or money. It's your job, as commander, as leader, as leader of entire country to use and spend those resourses right, for to get results. Nobody can judge you for you doing your job, but you can be judged for doing your job wrong. Stalin did a lot of wrong things in 1941-42, nobody excueses him for that. But still, he won that war, he saved our country, liberated Europe from nazi, captured Berlin.

So, I think, Stalin used all his resourses pretty well, if we will look on results.

Oh and you discredited yourself just there btw (cf italic) the more you try to deny facts, the more you end up destroring every arguments you say, i don't know where you were teached history but that wasn't a good teacher

But... You know what word "Volks" means, right? Volksgrenadeers and Volkssturm groups were pretty same german "conscripts". Wehrmacht tried to put there as much as possible experienced soldiers, who were injured or doesn't have good health qualities at all, but in late war casualteis were so big - there weren't enough of them.

But in game, Volksgrenadeers performs very good, way better than soviet conscripts. Sometimes even better, than usual grenadeers.

Soviet soldiers, from other side, in 1944-45 had really good combat experience after all those years of war. New conscripted soldiers also were trained and trained good - USSR did have time for training soldiers in 1944-45. But not conscripts were real core of Red Army in 1944-45, they had a lot of real good soldiers in action, passed through bunch of campaings and combats

The term conscript isn´t a term that necessarily describes the performance of a unit. I had relatives that were conscripted in 1941. One ended up being in a Panzergrenadier division. That´s some kind of crack status. But nonetheless he was still a conscript. In fact almost every soldier back then was conscripted.

The term "conscripts" for the Soviet mainline infantry could very well be used for the Grenadiers in Coh2. It´s just a description.

All I see here is this becoming a heated argument.

I'm locking this thread to stop it absorbing too much time.