Heroic?
Ask the Poles and Hungarians if they think the Russians were heroic?
Savages would be more appropriate word to use in IMO
1 Like
In war, many are heroic, many are not.In the 2nd World War, few were as heroic as the Waffen SS as an example. They were generally absolute heroic crack units with extreme motivation and full of will for selfless sacrifice,often fighting almost to the last man. Being heroic doesnāt mean that you are kind or that you fight for an ethical and morally sound cause. Being heroic only means that you are very brave and go above and beyond what a normal man would be willing to do. Highly ideological warriors and Ultra Nationalists are very often quite heroic.
You can absolutely be both incredibly inhumane, savage-like and still incrdibly heroic.
2 Likes
Itās basically nazi rethoric:
Every communication signal theyāve managed to intercept and leak to the world of the Russians - letās say serving - on the frontline all appear to be having second thoughts and/or waiting on a call to come back home. Have no idea on the authenticity of the translation but you do get the impression that they donāt really want to be there and are only fighting this senseless battle out of fear what might happen if theyāre deemed to be displaying signs of treachery.
heroics fighting Hitler i.e. Stalingrad
1 Like
Oof, where to start on that one. Hitler didnāt need it and Stalin didnāt need to defend it. It had value, yes, but not in a defining sense except for one thing. Itās name. I know there is some debate about its strategic importance at the time, Iām if the opinion that itās would have been nice to have but not so critically important to have split Army Group South in order to proceed into the Caucasus and attack Stalingrad at the same time.
Stalin issued an order closing the city off and nobody was to be evacuated and thus thousands of civilians including women and children were left in the city to āmotivateā defenders to fight harder and de facto became part of the defending force. The Soviets then drip fed just enough troops in order to hold the siege but not enough to force an outcome while massive reserves were being brought up over the river. This was done to lure the entire 6th Army in and Paulus, rather foolishly, took the bait and was enveloped as a result when the underequipped armies protecting his flanks were broken by the Soviet counteroffensive.
Anyhow, much like today, Stalin and his generals viewed their armies as little more than meat to the grinder because they had more meat than the enemy. Thousands upon thousands of Russian lives were expended in a cauldron they were not allowed to leave from. Ultimately in a winning cause, of course, and definitely not without heroism but ja, I dunnoā¦ Iām not sure one can attribute true heroism to those who are either killed by the enemy or by those behind them whoād kill them if they retreat. Theyāre literally caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. An interesting case to be made either way.
Sorry about the ramble.
4 Likes
It doesnāt matter. All sides in all wars have heroes, some more than others. It is the nature of brutal war that some will be more selfless and have more steel than others. Generally, the more ideologically motivated you are, such as a true believer in Fascism as an example (or if fighting for the very survival of those you intimately love), the more prone to heroism you will be. This is also why most successful armies tries to instill a strong esprit de corps and brotherhood in their units. The stronger this is, again, the more prone to selfless heroism you will be.
5 Likes
Iām reminded of a conversation I had years ago where someone had described suicide bombers as being cowards. The security guy who was running the meeting said that you could describe them of many unpleasant things, but cowardice was not one of them.
3 Likes
Indeed. Iāve always been of the opinion that people who brand nazi-fanatics and ISIS cowards (because this is typical on the internet) do so because it is derogatory and it is too hard for them to rationalise that people with horrific ethics can be heroes. People that kill themselves before surrendering are not cowards.Those who claim that is āthe easy way outā speak pure nonsense. Killing yourself out of conviction is not easy, it is very hard and requires steel.
Edit: ISIS is slightly different. They think they go straight to heaven so arguably easier but itās not cowardice either.
2 Likes
I donāt think that it is significantly different from the mood among the troops in the trenches of WW1. History tends to repeat itself in a disgustingly similar manner at times.
5 Likes
not to weigh in too heavily, but ultimately, it CAN be a form of cowardice.
cowardly in the form of not facing punishment for something you might know deep down is a crime
and, ultimately, cowardly, because the true hard work is in trying to find a way to live with each other, trying to prosper, facing what we have created and trying to improve the world for future generations.
OK, it might be a form of bravery to inflict pain on oneself ( the ultimate pain in this case), but you could argue the true hereos are the ones who broker peace, who stand up to hatred, the ones who refuse to give thier lives, or thier sons or daughters lives to a cause that is ultimately devisive.
whos braverā¦the child who blindly follows thier parents will, or the child who questions it?
1 Like
It can, sure. But thatās in a minority of situations I think (most people prefer prison to suicide). You need to also look at it from the āperpetratorās povā or conviction, as I am doubtful that for instance Waffen SS who comitted war crimes on behalf of the state viewed it as morally wrong, as the scary part about true believers in usually that they think they do so for a good cause (nazism is nihilistic, as is ISIS form of Islam, end justifies the means aka greater good etc.). All of these could still be aspects of so called Aristotleās Virtues of Valour (in their deeds, even though they may be otherwise cruel). I think you should be careful not to use your own moral compass of right and wrong here really and just focus on what would be a āhard choiceā or willingness to go above and beyond and be selfless.
Then I personally agree that it is better to stand up against hatred, broker peace and so on, but that I am not sure is heroic in the conventional meaning of the word unless you do so at immense risk.
Anyway, we could maybe spend time debating this back and forth and maybe opinions will differ. I am just noting that I donāt find heroism as a concept to equal morally good. It can be, but in the traditional Aristotilen view it is more about great willingness to sacrifice more than being an otherwise good person.
3 Likes
The situation is incredibly difficuolt for Ukraine in Bakhmut. Russia has been making strategic gains and threatens partial encirclement.
Maybe some will find this interview with Arsetovic interesting
1 Like
Am I right in thinking that Bakhmut isnāt that important , strategically speaking ?
I get that UA wants to deny the Russians ( the Wagner Group ) anything they can claim as a sign of victory , but might a tactical withdrawal not be the wiser course of action ?
not bad, eh?
8 Likes
Does anybody have half a clue as to why Russia has been so shit at this? According to the BBC, Ukraine have taken back half the land that the Russianās took. Why the hell has a massive power like Russian been so utterly useless? Massive ranks of troops and tanks and steamroll the country. In no way do I think they should but whatās the actual point any more of a war that has no progress?