If they were supporting, in the most literal sense, fucking Nazi Germany, they were complicit in its crimes. Especially in the context of being killed while invading anothers' country- were Soviet soldiers supposed to be upset when the people raping and pillaging their land died?
God this is just baffling, and I pretty much only see this shit about German soldiers in WW2
No, you wouldn't get anywhere by re-explaining it because I understand the point you're making, it's not as if it's complex. It's just a stupid point to promote.
Yes, they were the proletariat. They were also actively in the process of committing genocide. Soviet soldiers had every reason to feel pride and, yes, bloodlust when it came to killing them, and to that I say, good for them. Class solidarity is a good thing, but maybe try not extending that to people actively engaged in genocide
Deleting all my comments because the continued negativity is ruining my time on the site.
One of my favorite things about the old sub reddit (before it really went full time struggle session) was the general sense of comraderie and quality of discourse. Here's hoping we can engage on friendlier terms in the future.
Nobody is circle-jerking over killing the proletariat, people are celebrating a deservedly so-called hero, who defended her homeland against invaders who would've killed every last one of them if it weren't for people like her. jfc
Over a long period, we have developed this concept for the struggle against the enemy: strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously. This also means that we must despise the enemy with respect to the whole, but that we must take him seriously with respect to each concrete question. If we do not despise the enemy with respect to the whole, we shall be committing the error of opportunism. Marx and Engels were only two individuals, and yet in those early days they already declared that capitalism would be overthrown throughout the world. However, in dealing with concrete problems and particular enemies we shall be committing the error of adventurism unless we take them seriously. In war, battles can only be fought one by one and the enemy forces can only be destroyed one by one. Factories can only be built one by one. The peasants can only plough the land plot by plot. The same is even true of eating a meal. Strategically, we take the eating of a meal lightly - we know we can finish it. Actually, we eat it mouthful by mouthful. It is impossible to swallow an entire banquet in one gulp. This is known as a piecemeal solution. In military parlance, it is called wiping out the enemy forces one by one.
deleted by creator
The Clean Wehrmacht myth? In my Chapo?
deleted by creator
If they were supporting, in the most literal sense, fucking Nazi Germany, they were complicit in its crimes. Especially in the context of being killed while invading anothers' country- were Soviet soldiers supposed to be upset when the people raping and pillaging their land died?
God this is just baffling, and I pretty much only see this shit about German soldiers in WW2
Come on, that's not true, you see it about Confederate soldiers all the time
Very true. Also modern-day American troops, now that I think about it
deleted by creator
In another timeline they very well could have been comrades. And in THIS timeline, they were raping and pillaging the USSR
deleted by creator
No, you wouldn't get anywhere by re-explaining it because I understand the point you're making, it's not as if it's complex. It's just a stupid point to promote.
Yes, they were the proletariat. They were also actively in the process of committing genocide. Soviet soldiers had every reason to feel pride and, yes, bloodlust when it came to killing them, and to that I say, good for them. Class solidarity is a good thing, but maybe try not extending that to people actively engaged in genocide
deleted by creator
And you have the nerve to say I was missing the point.
deleted by creator
Takes two to tango, comrade. And personally, I'm ok with starting a fight with people spending so much energy arguing not to dehumanize Nazis
deleted by creator
Deleting all my comments because the continued negativity is ruining my time on the site.
One of my favorite things about the old sub reddit (before it really went full time struggle session) was the general sense of comraderie and quality of discourse. Here's hoping we can engage on friendlier terms in the future.
Nobody is circle-jerking over killing the proletariat, people are celebrating a deservedly so-called hero, who defended her homeland against invaders who would've killed every last one of them if it weren't for people like her. jfc
deleted by creator
Over a long period, we have developed this concept for the struggle against the enemy: strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously. This also means that we must despise the enemy with respect to the whole, but that we must take him seriously with respect to each concrete question. If we do not despise the enemy with respect to the whole, we shall be committing the error of opportunism. Marx and Engels were only two individuals, and yet in those early days they already declared that capitalism would be overthrown throughout the world. However, in dealing with concrete problems and particular enemies we shall be committing the error of adventurism unless we take them seriously. In war, battles can only be fought one by one and the enemy forces can only be destroyed one by one. Factories can only be built one by one. The peasants can only plough the land plot by plot. The same is even true of eating a meal. Strategically, we take the eating of a meal lightly - we know we can finish it. Actually, we eat it mouthful by mouthful. It is impossible to swallow an entire banquet in one gulp. This is known as a piecemeal solution. In military parlance, it is called wiping out the enemy forces one by one.
Also fascist invaders get yeeted
No, it's actually rad