2 ms·

> Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but the tradeoff was different to them Yes. Because they don't value human life as much. That's the point. > What do you

by ajuc 2y ago

> Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but the tradeoff was different to them Yes. Because they don't value human life as much. That's the point. > What do you mean, "trolling"? Taking pride in shocking westerners with your recklessness. > A delay in a Soviet operation had vastly more disastrous and costlier consequences (in lives). Notice how when it was politically beneficial - soviets waited for over a month on Vistula river bank while on the other bank Polish resistance was securing passage and fighting Germans.

the_af 2y ago
> Yes. Because they don't value human life as much. That's the point. No, that's begging the question. I'm providing a different interpretation than yours, based on reading experts on the Eastern Front. I explained the tradeoffs, and I know you read my explanations. You cannot simply ignore them. As an aside, in my opinion you're implicitly making an entirely unsupported assertion: that most of those lopsided Soviet infantry deaths were caused by minefields (since you provided it as an example). Unless you can support this with some references, I'll be skeptical... especially since it contradicts the stated opinion of someone who actually was there to win the war: Zhukov. > [re: "trolling"] Taking pride in shocking westerners with your recklessness. I'm sorry, who do you think is/was "taking pride in shocking westerners"? Zhukov was reckless in order to shock westerners? I don't follow what you're saying at all. > Notice how when it was politically beneficial - soviets waited for over a month on Vistula river bank while on the other bank Polish resistance was securing passage and fighting Germans. It was politically and strategically beneficial from the Soviet point of view, yes. That uprising was discouraged by the Soviets and it wasn't a Soviet-led operation, so it doesn't seem to have much to do with those alleged "human wave attacks" or "not valuing human life". Can it be criticized from other points of view? Sure, but it doesn't support your main point.

by ajuc 2y ago

the_af 2y ago

> Yes. Because they don't value human life as much. That's the point. No, that's begging the question. I'm providing a different interpretation than yours, based on reading experts on the Eastern Front. I explained the tradeoffs, and I know you read my explanations. You cannot simply ignore them. As an aside, in my opinion you're implicitly making an entirely unsupported assertion: that most of those lopsided Soviet infantry deaths were caused by minefields (since you provided it as an example). Unless you can support this with some references, I'll be skeptical... especially since it contradicts the stated opinion of someone who actually was there to win the war: Zhukov. > [re: "trolling"] Taking pride in shocking westerners with your recklessness. I'm sorry, who do you think is/was "taking pride in shocking westerners"? Zhukov was reckless in order to shock westerners? I don't follow what you're saying at all. > Notice how when it was politically beneficial - soviets waited for over a month on Vistula river bank while on the other bank Polish resistance was securing passage and fighting Germans. It was politically and strategically beneficial from the Soviet point of view, yes. That uprising was discouraged by the Soviets and it wasn't a Soviet-led operation, so it doesn't seem to have much to do with those alleged "human wave attacks" or "not valuing human life". Can it be criticized from other points of view? Sure, but it doesn't support your main point.