the Reichstag and who got on there first?
- Thread starter Jhaxavier
- Start date
Not sure I've encountered that designation before - sure sounds dramatic though. Bit like the Death Star.
On a side note, Crypto-nazis who attempt to justify even the slightest one of the excesses of the 3rd Reich with an explanation that a crusade against Bolshevism was necessary and who idealise the supposed technological superiority of the Wehrmacht whilst almost palpably investing such with a sense of it being evidence of supposed racial superiority are pretty f***ing far from sweet or pretty.
Not that anyone on these forums would do that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Heinz said:
Heinz as you are well aware spam is not allowed under forum rules. Stop trying to get yourself banned again please, if you want to be a martyr, at least try to hide it slightly. If you continue to thread snipe and antagonise the moderators then you will get the ban you seem to be hoping for.
Even your sig says "iustus ban mihi vos ignavus" which translates loosely (and i apologise if my Latin isn't perfect) to "Just ban me you cowards."
So I make sure this message is public, so you can't later claim you weren't warned or acting in any way other than to deliberately get yourself banned. This is the final warning you get, if you want to keep asking for a ban then one will be made available. But don't think you can claim it unfair or over zealous.
Upvote
0
A
American_Psycho
Guest
Not sure I've encountered that designation before - sure sounds dramatic though. Bit like the Death Star.
So nestor are you doubting the fact that certain NKVD units were formed just to keep the regulars in line? Do you remember this phrase? "In the soviet army, it takes more courage to retreat than advance". Why do you think that is ya dumb Wookie?
Upvote
0
Have you ever tried to research the subject? Like, at all? Not just "I've heard that saying, and this means there were everywhere", but read at least some documents, memoirs, books?
I did. After watching "Shtrafbat" series, I decided that now it's time to know what did really happen in those battalions. So I've picked 4 books written by soldiers who served in penal battalions (most of them as officers, one as a private) and one memoir of a man, who also served in NKVD for some time.
First of all, there was no such thing as "NKVD deathsquads". I think you're talking about zagradotriady, blocking detachments. They were positioned behind frontlines and their main task was to search desertirs, check soldiers going to front and from front. Almost like the guys in airport: they just checked documents.
Also, when things were getting heavy and platoons tried to fall back/retreat from the frontlines without order, it was their duty to stop them from doing so. One guy, who was a captain, iirc, in shtrafbat said there were no zagradotriads behind them at all. Literally, none. Because their morale was almost always high. Others discribed few episodes of their meeting with blocking detachments. They were similar episodes: companies were retreating until they've met blocking detachments, who said: "You won't go anywhere from here. Stop and build new defenses", what they did. Without a single shot. Remember cool scenes from EatG? Forget them, they are trash.
The guy who served in NKVD says that they even had to fight few times together with the guys they should block from retreating against German tanks. They weren't idiots and understood that if they will shoot entire company, Germans will have a easy day stomping them into ground, as they had no anti-tank weapons, they were armed mostly with PPShs and rifles. So they joined forces with usual soldiers, although they didn't have to, as they weren't frontline troops. He also describes that the did shot their men. One was a coward, the other was a marodeur and a thief. First had to bring message to some officer on the frontline, but he decided that it was to dangerous and stayed in some bushes, then came back and said that mission was complete (he thought that that officer was killed in the meatgrinder). But after a little investigation all became clear.
I don't get your dissatisfaction with that saying about how retreat needs more courage etc either. French soldiers didn't have to have more courage to retreat and what happened? Less Germans died while taking Paris than assaulting only one house in Stalingrad (Pavlov's, that is).
Also, can we discuss this topic without naming each others "dumb"? Because, you know, it's not hard for me to call you an idiot, but I don't do that, do I?
I did. After watching "Shtrafbat" series, I decided that now it's time to know what did really happen in those battalions. So I've picked 4 books written by soldiers who served in penal battalions (most of them as officers, one as a private) and one memoir of a man, who also served in NKVD for some time.
First of all, there was no such thing as "NKVD deathsquads". I think you're talking about zagradotriady, blocking detachments. They were positioned behind frontlines and their main task was to search desertirs, check soldiers going to front and from front. Almost like the guys in airport: they just checked documents.
Also, when things were getting heavy and platoons tried to fall back/retreat from the frontlines without order, it was their duty to stop them from doing so. One guy, who was a captain, iirc, in shtrafbat said there were no zagradotriads behind them at all. Literally, none. Because their morale was almost always high. Others discribed few episodes of their meeting with blocking detachments. They were similar episodes: companies were retreating until they've met blocking detachments, who said: "You won't go anywhere from here. Stop and build new defenses", what they did. Without a single shot. Remember cool scenes from EatG? Forget them, they are trash.
The guy who served in NKVD says that they even had to fight few times together with the guys they should block from retreating against German tanks. They weren't idiots and understood that if they will shoot entire company, Germans will have a easy day stomping them into ground, as they had no anti-tank weapons, they were armed mostly with PPShs and rifles. So they joined forces with usual soldiers, although they didn't have to, as they weren't frontline troops. He also describes that the did shot their men. One was a coward, the other was a marodeur and a thief. First had to bring message to some officer on the frontline, but he decided that it was to dangerous and stayed in some bushes, then came back and said that mission was complete (he thought that that officer was killed in the meatgrinder). But after a little investigation all became clear.
I don't get your dissatisfaction with that saying about how retreat needs more courage etc either. French soldiers didn't have to have more courage to retreat and what happened? Less Germans died while taking Paris than assaulting only one house in Stalingrad (Pavlov's, that is).
Also, can we discuss this topic without naming each others "dumb"? Because, you know, it's not hard for me to call you an idiot, but I don't do that, do I?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's very interesting bolt, thanks for sharing
I could use these for my comic, I'm aiming for an anti-cliche Ostfront comic
Upvote
0
So nestor are you doubting the fact that certain NKVD units were formed just to keep the regulars in line? Do you remember this phrase? "In the soviet army, it takes more courage to retreat than advance". Why do you think that is ya dumb Wookie?
I certainly am not - I am questioning the use of the word 'deathsquad' as if that were an official designation. I think I can also recognise a piece of Stalin's macho posturing when it is quuoted at me.
I am also questioning whether you actually have done any serious research at all into the Eastern Front - I have spoken to veterans of Stalingrad in my time, none mentioned that there were 'Enema at the Gates' -style squads of subhuman-looking guys with machine guns sitting behind them as they advanced without rifles or bullets, waiting to mow them down if they faltered.
I can imagine that, to someone who has never been outside of his own state, seeing a film like 'Enemy at the Gates' could seem like verification of prejudices developed during the late-phase cold war. But it is actually complete bull****. Funnily enough, in Volgograd itself, the only people who talk of the film without prefixing it, "That piece of sh**..." are some of the old-school soviets. They tend to like the fact that it is based on the life, not of the most successful sniper, but the one with the best party credentials.
Zagradotriady did turn guys round if they were heading in the wrong direction, did arrest people if they wouldn't turn round and put them into shtrafbatalioni, and did, on occasion, shoot cowards. Papers are now, after many years of secrecy, being released regarding the actions of these units. They show that, whilst questionable and often morally objectionable, their tasks were generally a lot more mundane than massacring their own side.
There is also mention of them being called up to the frontline at Stalingrad by Chuikov, who saw the presence of relatively well-equipped political troops behind the guys doing the fighting as a waste of resources and also a serious sap on the morale of the front-line guys. They were presumably asking, "Why the hell aren't they up here with us getting mauled as well?" I doubt the Zagradchiki were too keen on their frontline role but they fought and died along with all the rest, consequently raising morale along the frontline by demonstrating that no-one was being excused. Check out the actions of the 10th NKVD Rifle Division around Orlovka to see how your 'DeathSquads' were deployed.
I have gone on the record on these forums as stating my extreme distaste for the barbaric actions committed by both sides in the most brutal campaign the world has known. As someone who has, if any at all, anarchist and libertarian leanings, I have sympathy with the ordinary people on both sides who were caught up in the struggle between two totalitarian ideologies fomented by two monsters. As someone who spent a long time living in Russia I tend to have more interest in their side of the story as that relates to places and people I know and have encountered.
The people who come up with the most negative opinions of the Russian people and the Soviet fight are usually those who have had no contact whatsoever with them. People whose opinions of the Soviet war effort come from 'evidence' uncovered in US interrogation of Nazi officers after the war just as the cold war was beginning.
I have absolutely zero tolerance of poorly-informed, prejudiced opinions which try to belittle the unimaginable suffering and bravery of people by saying things like, "Well of course the Soviets fought hard, Stalin was there to shoot them in the back if they didn't." It is a glib, superficial and highly suspect attitude.
My advice is, read some books, get a passport, meet some of the people you imagine to be these ciphers such as portrayed in Enemy at the Gates. Then form an opinion. Then I might be able to treat your opinions with something more than scorn.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
A
American_Psycho
Guest
Well it seems you boys are getting confused about my intentions. I am pointing out the fact that the Stalin regime was THE MOST monstorous in modern human history. You guys have conceded my point about the death squads or if you like "the guys that kept everyone in line". You run away from the front you get shot. That is the way communism operates.
The farmers and peasants of russia got it the worst. Do you guys remember what happened to all the hundreds of thousands of russain POWs that were released after the war. Stalin had a little party for them when they got back. He called them traitors and said they aided the enemy. Thousands who fought for russia died in forced labor camps. That is communism.
The farmers and peasants of russia got it the worst. Do you guys remember what happened to all the hundreds of thousands of russain POWs that were released after the war. Stalin had a little party for them when they got back. He called them traitors and said they aided the enemy. Thousands who fought for russia died in forced labor camps. That is communism.
Upvote
0
To understand that such the Soviet army, it is necessary to read Joseph Heller, "Сatch 22" .
Zagradotriady has appeared even in the first world war.
Penal battalion was in Germans . If the American army had the same losses, it was used by Americans .
Zagradotriady has appeared even in the first world war.
Penal battalion was in Germans . If the American army had the same losses, it was used by Americans .
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That is communism.
That is Stalin. As much as you want to connect the two fully, there are differences. The "repatriation" camps were probably due to Stalin's paranoid fear of the Nazis doing something to Russian POW's. Or maybe he just wanted to kick someone around now that the Ukrainians and Germans were down.
Upvote
0
I would not say that I have conceded your point about Deathsquads at all - it is a sloppy piece of labelling based on a sensationalist view of history.
Nor would I particularly say that there is a scale of monstrousness by which you can make a judgement about the Stalin regime. It certainly was abhorrent and Stalin was actually evil in ways that can constantly surprise anyone who reads about him. The atmosphere of paranoia and naked fear that many lived under during the 30's and beyond can still reach across the years and affect anyone studying it.
But, as for comparing regimes from recent history against some kind of gold standard of evil: it could get rather depressing - in the 'communist' corner you have Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim and several others; in the anti-communist or western-supported corner: Pinochet, Bokassa, Amin, Saddam and so on. I think it suffices to say that the nature of evil transcends political ideology but tends to aggregate at the extremes.
The idea that communism is the ultimate evil has been used several times in recent history to sanction regimes every bit as ruthless and bloodthirsty and without even some kind of idealism, however warped, as justification. The term 'deathsquads' you seem so keen on using first came into widespread usage in the west to describe the activities of informal militias attached to several Latin American dictatorships. Dictatorships expressly supported by the west simply because they were not communist.
It is my personal opinion that communism is no longer a particular threat to people's liberty. Communism will pretty certainly never regain its foothold in Russia and is in the process of undergoing a very strange mutation in China. The argument that this is because people such as Reagan and Thatcher were willing to get their hands dirty by supporting some extremely murderous and repressive regimes in 'target' countries seems, to me, highly doubtful. These people are, however, still lauded to quite an extent in Eastern Europe so it's a tricky question.
I would say that it is more the case that communism has collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions and its inability to cope with a changing world.
I am a lot less sanguine about the threat to liberty posed by fascism. I really do not want to get involved in a discussion of this aspect as it will probably get me a warning from a mod. Suffice it to say that there is nothing quite so disturbing as seeing today a swastika scrawled on a wall in a Russian city which suffered as much in the defeat of fascism as Volgograd did.
The Soviets won the second world war (or at least the European part thereof)- much as they suffered, America, the UK, France and others were merely bit-part players by comparison. Fascism was defeated (for then) before Moscow, in Stalingrad, at Kursk and eventually in Berlin. To imply that it was defeated by people simply because they were forced at gunpoint to fight by their own side is a grave injustice and slander against these people's bravery and sacrifice.
Read "Stalingrad - How the Red Army Triumphed" my Michael K Jones for a take on how the RKKA defeated the Germans in Stalingrad almost despite the regime under which they fought. In fact, read just about anything before passing comment on history.
As regards the shooting of one's own troops - Britain in World War I shot a lot of its own men that today would be classified as suffering from Combat Stress. I'm not defending that, just saying that it is not particularly a Stalinist or even Communist thing to do. In fact, I recently read in Guy Sajer's 'The Forgotten Soldier' of a case where a member of the Gross Deutschland division who was clearly suffering from shell shock was shot by his own side. Seems like this stuff happens in wars.
Touching upon the welcome home repatriated prisoners got - well, in many cases, that surely was a very good example of Stalin's paranoia and his indifference to large numbers of deaths caused by it. After they got wind of what Stalin was doing to, for example, Don Cossacks who were returned to the East, the Western allies got rather cagey about returning many more. It was not, however, universal for all returning POW's/internees to be executed or even sent into internal exile.
To imply that it was is another example of a sweeping statement which simply betrays a lack of research.
You clearly have an interest in history - please feed that interest with a lot of reading from varied sources and just pack it in with the sweeping statements.
Nor would I particularly say that there is a scale of monstrousness by which you can make a judgement about the Stalin regime. It certainly was abhorrent and Stalin was actually evil in ways that can constantly surprise anyone who reads about him. The atmosphere of paranoia and naked fear that many lived under during the 30's and beyond can still reach across the years and affect anyone studying it.
But, as for comparing regimes from recent history against some kind of gold standard of evil: it could get rather depressing - in the 'communist' corner you have Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim and several others; in the anti-communist or western-supported corner: Pinochet, Bokassa, Amin, Saddam and so on. I think it suffices to say that the nature of evil transcends political ideology but tends to aggregate at the extremes.
The idea that communism is the ultimate evil has been used several times in recent history to sanction regimes every bit as ruthless and bloodthirsty and without even some kind of idealism, however warped, as justification. The term 'deathsquads' you seem so keen on using first came into widespread usage in the west to describe the activities of informal militias attached to several Latin American dictatorships. Dictatorships expressly supported by the west simply because they were not communist.
It is my personal opinion that communism is no longer a particular threat to people's liberty. Communism will pretty certainly never regain its foothold in Russia and is in the process of undergoing a very strange mutation in China. The argument that this is because people such as Reagan and Thatcher were willing to get their hands dirty by supporting some extremely murderous and repressive regimes in 'target' countries seems, to me, highly doubtful. These people are, however, still lauded to quite an extent in Eastern Europe so it's a tricky question.
I would say that it is more the case that communism has collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions and its inability to cope with a changing world.
I am a lot less sanguine about the threat to liberty posed by fascism. I really do not want to get involved in a discussion of this aspect as it will probably get me a warning from a mod. Suffice it to say that there is nothing quite so disturbing as seeing today a swastika scrawled on a wall in a Russian city which suffered as much in the defeat of fascism as Volgograd did.
The Soviets won the second world war (or at least the European part thereof)- much as they suffered, America, the UK, France and others were merely bit-part players by comparison. Fascism was defeated (for then) before Moscow, in Stalingrad, at Kursk and eventually in Berlin. To imply that it was defeated by people simply because they were forced at gunpoint to fight by their own side is a grave injustice and slander against these people's bravery and sacrifice.
Read "Stalingrad - How the Red Army Triumphed" my Michael K Jones for a take on how the RKKA defeated the Germans in Stalingrad almost despite the regime under which they fought. In fact, read just about anything before passing comment on history.
As regards the shooting of one's own troops - Britain in World War I shot a lot of its own men that today would be classified as suffering from Combat Stress. I'm not defending that, just saying that it is not particularly a Stalinist or even Communist thing to do. In fact, I recently read in Guy Sajer's 'The Forgotten Soldier' of a case where a member of the Gross Deutschland division who was clearly suffering from shell shock was shot by his own side. Seems like this stuff happens in wars.
Touching upon the welcome home repatriated prisoners got - well, in many cases, that surely was a very good example of Stalin's paranoia and his indifference to large numbers of deaths caused by it. After they got wind of what Stalin was doing to, for example, Don Cossacks who were returned to the East, the Western allies got rather cagey about returning many more. It was not, however, universal for all returning POW's/internees to be executed or even sent into internal exile.
To imply that it was is another example of a sweeping statement which simply betrays a lack of research.
You clearly have an interest in history - please feed that interest with a lot of reading from varied sources and just pack it in with the sweeping statements.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I lol'd at the nade spam comment. Are you sure that's what it translates to?
PS: Sorry my post doesn't hate/defend Soviets.
Upvote
0
Jhaxavier, here's another Ostfront cliche you can break in your comic.
Less than 10% of POW, who were freed during the war, were repressed. Less than 15% of pow who were freed after the war were repressed. Most of them did get what they have deserved: they were polizei, vlasov soldiers etc. Of course, no doubt, there were some who got repressed for nothing, but they didn't make major part of all these people.
Furthermroe, most repressed people got exiled to some little town, far from Moscow. If you got sentenced to live in GULAG, you must have really done something bad, some concrete deals while serving to hitlerites.
I've taken these numbers from a book, called "Velikaja obolgannaja vojna" by Pyhalov. Where did you take your info, American Psycho?
Not that I expect AP to read this/or understand. Looks like he doesn't want to learn.
2 Sharpshooter.
They each had like 5-6 grenades and they threw them all at the same time into one room. I call this a nadespam.
Upvote
0
Ah, interesting, thanks a lot Bolt!
PM me if you have any more bits of info about what it was really like back then, I could use any information I can get.
Memoirs on iremember.ru are interesting to read...
Upvote
0
A
American_Psycho
Guest
Tell that to the poor Cubans who raft to the USA on '57 Chevy car rafts...
I am not going to recall historical facts any more because they just seem to get swept under the rug by the revisionists on this board. I will leave you with two quotes...
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
"You won't have AP to kick around anymore"
One phrase keeps coming to mind when I see the appeasers spew their rhetoric on this board..."Useful Idiots".
Upvote
0
Those, who don't know **** about history are.. well, retarded. So I thank you for choosing the right option and leave the discussion.
Upvote
0
Good point - forgot that one - wow- it's almost like history is not black and white! Who'd have thought it? North Korea too (though I am not sure even the sloppiest commentator would consider that communism). How long past the death of Fidel or Kim Jing-Il do you think those regimes will last? Providing no major power goes storming in there all gangbusters after they die, I would say 5 - 10 years before a form of democracy starts to emerge.
Wasn't aware that you'd started - what, in your book, constitutes a 'historical fact' please?
Those who attempt to judge the Russian people and make statements about their historical past on the basis of f***-all are not even going to get off the starting blocks in the history race.
Shame - really it is - it is rare to see someone who so neatly encapsulates why it is important to study history before mouthing off about it.
OK - here's some rhetoric: Appeasing whom? How many brownie points with Joe Stalin am I earning by pointing out that your sweeping generalisations are hypocritical (in the classical sense of 'not sufficiently using one's mental facilities to critique concepts')? How can I trade them in?
As I am getting truly tired of pointing out, I have complete disdain for any form of authoritarian regime - a disdain only exceeded by that which I have for sloganeers of the right, whose main beef against communism seems to be that it is not their own particular brand of repression.
Do your brain a favour, leave the soundbites to those whose stock in trade they are - spin doctors, politicians and lame shock jocks.
BTW - loved the Richard M Nixon paraphrase there - I would almost suspect a wry sense of humour at work.
Last edited:
Upvote
0