Are some soldiers heros?

[noname223]

I would say yes. But there are also a lot of soldiers who are monsters.

But it is too easy to say that one army is the good one. And one army the bad ones.

Though, I would say I have high respect for the vast majority of Ukrainian soldiers. Especially, the ones who volunteer and don't belong to the azow batailion.

I recenty wached a discussion on Switzerland TV. (as video on Youtube)

Two participants were hawks against Russia, and experts in their field. There was also a younger participant an influencer who tries to be an intellectual. And he got cooked in the debate.

One could say the conditions the TV producers determined also determined the outcome of the debate. This young influencer was stunned at one moment and was speechless because he didn't have an argument.

Tbf I am more on the side of the Russia hawks. But I think the producers of the show did not want a fair debate. I heard real intellectuals with similar talking points but who could argue way better. The influencer is very popular though on the left and among younger people. I never heard of him but a friend did.

Some talking points were: the German system/democracy isn't worth dying for, living under occupation isn't that bad especially compared to dying (a Russia hawk asked about the frequent rapings under Russian occupation), he more or less portrayed Selensky as war-mongerer (which is popular on the internet but I think that's extremely distorted and even Orwellian)

I would not want to fight in a war. I had psychosis it is close to impossible that they will force me. Friends of me debate leaving the country for various reasons. But I don't like how disrespectful many young Germans talk about the German democracy. They take things for granted. They should spend 4 weeks in Russia or Ukraine to learn what unfreedom, oppression and war really means. There are stories of peoplw who left Germany and moved to Russia. And well these people were disillusioned pretty quickly...

 

[DarkRange55]

Desmond Doss - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dejected 55]

Complicated answers...

Soldiers don't usually start wars... typically it's people who don't go to war who start them. So the soldiers are doing what they are told and often they are not told the entire truth. Soldiers can easily be doing things they think are good... they are told the enemy is out to get them and do bad things to them... soldiers aren't supposed to question orders or they can be severely punished... in a war combat situation "friendly fire" might kill a soldier who isn't following unquestioningly his orders... but then the soldier who commits atrocities that he should have known better? He gets punished after the fact as a scapegoat while the people who create the situation and give the bad orders skate by.

I think of things like Vietnam for the US... people were right to protest that war and condemn the decision-makers in government that sent kids there to fight and kill... but people were wrong to arbitrarily condemn all the soldiers who returned from the war as if it was their decision to be there... Our government has a history of saying "support the troops" but then when the troops come home that same government abandons the troops who often return with mental and physical traumas and find it hard to integrate into civilian peaceful lives.

I tend to give soldiers on the frontline a bit more leeway in terms of judging their actions until I know more about how leadership conducted things.

 

[doomedbynarrative]

They are both. In war the other side will always be the bad guy. But the reality of war is common people and soldiers lose. We are all pawns on a chess board for the elite.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'm sure there are soldiers who put themselves at mortal risk to aid colleagues, protect civillians etc. Surely, anyone who puts their life in danger to protect or save another person is a hero- assuming their help is wanted.

I wouldn't say someone interupting a suicide was necessarily a hero. Even if their intentions were good. They maybe didn't think the whole thing through. They could just as easily be condemning the person as saving them.

I suppose we usually think of defending soldiers as heroes but there are probably heroes and villains both sides- as you suggest.

 

[Hvergelmir]

Though, I would say I have high respect for the vast majority of Ukrainian soldiers. Especially, the ones who volunteer and don't belong to the azow batailion.

Interesting how you distinguish Azow from the army. Most people seem to have forgotten who Azow were before the war.
From my understanding they're a nationalist paramilitary group, with ns influences.
They are without any doubt an asset in defending Ukraine, though. As far as I've seen they seem to conduct themselves pretty well on the battlefield.
I'm curious about if you have any criticism on their wartime operations. If there's one situation where radical nationalism is right, it's during an invasion.

but then the soldier who commits atrocities that he should have known better? He gets punished after the fact as a scapegoat...

I think there are two distinctly different kinds of war crimes.
On one side we have what I think you envision; often elements of the invading force, put in dangerous and confusing situations where they have to balance orders, personal safety, and laws of war.
There might be civilian non-combatants revealing your location, or otherwise supporting enemy combatants, willingly, or even unwillingly. There's also sometimes enemy combatants intentionally hiding among non-combatants; suicide bombers, and saboteurs, etc.
In those situations mass killings of civilians, and similar crimes, can definitely be attributed to the situation. I can see those crimes being committed out of fear, rather than malice.

On the other side there seem to be a high prevalence of opportunists.
Looting, sexual crimes, torture, and destruction of cultural sites, are hard to blame on leadership or situation.