Surprise!

surprise!

They’re the ultra-Nationalist swastika-loving battalion which is openly against the ceasefire agreed with pro-Russian separatists.
Now extremists from the Azov unit, a far-right neo-Nazi militia defending the port city of Mariupol in southeastern Ukraine, are teaching children as young as six how to fire guns in an attempt to entice them into the country’s bloody conflict
Disturbing pictures have emerged from a military summer camp held on the outskirts of Kiev which show members of the voluntary group teaching so-called ‘Azovets’ how to behave as young fighters. 

If that thing’s actually loaded he’ll learn soon enough to lean into the stock, not back from it.

45 thoughts on “Surprise!”

  1. bloke (not) in spain

    Children & guns are simply a bad idea. The average firearm is too unwieldy for a typical child to operate in a safe & effective manner. Children are much better suited to crew served weapons. The semi stationary characteristic of a mortar or heavy machine gun relies less on the child’s physical strength & stamina & also builds teamwork.

  2. Mr (n) in Spain, that sounds like a bumper sticker. It reminds me o a t-shirt I once saw with ‘celebrate diversity’ in bold cargo lettering at the top, and pictures of lots of different types of weapon underneath.

  3. A 74 fired like that isn’t going to hurt nearly as much as if it was a 47. You just don’t get the same kick in the teeth from 5.45mm that you do from even short 7.62.

    Mortars, BniS, seriously? Have you ever hefted a box of mortar bombs? Or a sodding mortar base plate?

  4. There is clearly a case for kid-sized guns–firing a lighter bullet/charge. This will prob wound rather than kill but that creates expensive casualties who have to be moved, first-aided and evac’d.

    Joking aside, the piece sounds like leftist bullshit. Real child soldiers-as in various African shitholes–are mainly forced into it. Not “enticed” by letting them fire a few shots. Even out and out socialist scum like the Nazis and Soviets didn’t press children into their military. Altho’ some may have fought as partisans to hit back at those occupying their countries and killing their loved ones. If that was what was going on above the kids wouldn’t need to be enticed. Most people who fight try to believe they are fighting any given war for their children and wouldn’t just allow them to “sign up” to some nutty kids battalion. The whole piece sounds suspect.

  5. Mr Ecks,

    Excepting that they’re neo-nazis, what’s the difference between this and the Girl Guides? My kids have shot rifles and done archery in the Guides. If they want to join the military, it won’t be until they’re 18.

  6. Stigler: That’s why I put it down as leftist propaganda. I strongly doubt that the kids are neo-nazis. And even if their parents are I can’t believe that even neo-anythings would want their kids as soldiers earlier than their late teens– if at all. Other peoples kids getting killed–well that would be different but not their own. For all we know it could just be a photo of the local gun club with a bullshit story attached.

  7. bloke (not) in spain

    @SE
    You can get a lot of tots around a mortar base plate.
    Teamwork
    Probably a better weapon for the pre-schoolers. Leave the 50 cal for the grade 4s

  8. B(n)is, yes, but the best kiddy-weapon is the armed drone. Combining a £1k quad from amazon with a couple of budget Israeli Hellfire knockoffs turns the average 7-year-old into a lean mean killing machine.
    Or such is my plan.

  9. ken,

    “Children and guns is not a good combo.”

    Any instructor that lets a 9 year old girl use an Uzi belongs in the Darwin Awards. I wouldn’t let any 9 year old near any gun except a fairground air rifle.

  10. “teaching children as young as six how to fire guns in an attempt to entice them into the country’s bloody conflict”

    The problem is obviously the country’s bloody conflict, and they should just surrender to the Putinskis.

    “Children and guns is not a good combo.” – Ken

    Nice hasty generalization. Dumbass instructor does something stupid, and therefore, kids and guns is bad.

  11. The Other Bloke in Italy

    Yes, do I recall the Uzi was on full auto?

    I have introduced children younger than that to bolt action without problems, and children that age to semi-auto.

  12. bloke (not) in spain

    I can think of 9 year olds should have been have introduced to semi-automatics. Bloody small targets, though.

  13. From my own experience it’s not a good idea to give kids guns. They’re just way too much fun.

    I was handed (as a RAF regiment cadet) a GPMG with a 250 round belt (fortunately, blanks) and a position in a slit trench to fire from. As soon as the officers and responsible adults were out of the immediate vicinity I was up out of the trench, firing that thing from the hip trying to emulate Rambo.

    Damn near blew me off my feet. And that was just with blanks. Stupid stupid stupid. But enormous fun.

  14. In the opening scene of American Sniper the kid doesn’t look more than 10.
    Shows the importance of early learning and a rigorous approach to homework.

  15. Did the original German Nazi ideology actually use children as soldiers from the start? The group here is described as neo-Nazi but I don’t think there is anything particular to National Socialism that involves child soldiers.

    As WW2 progressed and manpower shortages became apparent, younger boys would be used, mainly from the Youth movement. First on AA guns, then as frontline troops comprised of the ideologically fanatical 16/17 year olds progressing from the Youth. The final years saw 15 yo in front lines and crew and even younger on the final defense of Berlin.

    As far as Germany was concerned this was a desperate measure, the Youth movement was always intended to supply fanatical troops, but not to actually be used as soldiers.

  16. From the original article, 6th or 7th photo down:
    Some of the group work with an instructor to learn how to tie a variety of knots in different length ropes.

    Let’s hope nobody tells the Daily Mail about the boy scouts.

  17. “Did the original German Nazi ideology actually use children as soldiers from the start?”

    No. As you say it was later in the war – 1944 onwards that they used children. In Normandy one of the most fanatical German units was the 12th SS Panzer Division, made up of Hitler Youth, some as young as 15/ 16 years old.
    They fought hard, but murdered 156 Canadian prisoners they’d captured around Caen. Strangely enough, after this was discovered by the Canadians, they didn’t manage to capture any live members of the 12th SS Panzer Division. A mystery eh?

  18. bloke (not) in spain

    “They fought hard, but murdered 156 Canadian prisoners they’d captured around Caen. Strangely enough, after this was discovered by the Canadians, they didn’t manage to capture any live members of the 12th SS Panzer Division. A mystery eh?”
    Mmmm…
    The Canadians landed with orders not to take prisoners & there’s documented evidence of them killing captured Germans. Orders were later countermanded.

  19. The Canadians landed with orders not to take prisoners…

    Not that I doubt the assertion, but a link or citation would be nice.

  20. Note that they are “defending the port city of Mariupol in southeastern Ukraine,” during the alleged “ceasefire agreed with pro-Russian separatists.”
    The ceasefire statrted in September 2014 but this year the city has been hit by rockets fired by the forces of the self-styled “Donetsk People’s Republic”.

  21. sackcloth and ashes

    Has anyone actually checked that the initial story isn’t Russian disinfo?

    They do have form, after all, and I don’t trust the ‘Daily Heil’ to check.

  22. Let’s face, guns are fun.

    The problem isn’t the gun, it’s the incitement to kill someone because they are a different colour, have a different god, are subhuman etc etc.

  23. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “The” Canadians most certainly did not have orders not to take any prisoners, as that would have been an illegal order. At the tactical level, some units did occasionally dispense with taking prisoners for short periods of time, but it was never, and could never have been, official policy. It was not uncommon for SS troops to be shot out of hand, and there were certainly instances of reprisals, but in general in the Canadian sector and elsewhere surrender was accepted.

  24. Not taking prisoners must be a very human reaction at times.

    If somebody shot my mate then dropped his gun, stuck his hands up and grinned at me…..

    If you found out that morning your missus had been turned into corned beef by a V1 it might put you in a less than charitable mood towards Germans…..

    Shooting prisoners might even be understood as part of war. If you have prisoners but need to make an urgent retreat and have no way of taking your prisoners with you, what are you going to do? Leave them behind to be rearmed and shooting at you the next day?

    Fuck’s sake, it’s not a game of tennis.

  25. @ BiCR and Andrew
    I can understand, without necessarily condoning, units reacting to news that a SS unit had mudered prisoners. I hope that I should not have torn them to pieces with my bare hands.

  26. “If somebody shot my mate then dropped his gun, stuck his hands up and grinned at me…..”

    TLC – Too Late Chum.

    Alledgedly there was a certain amount of that in the Falklands, with Argentines in defensive positions expending their ammunition and then putting their hands up with the Brits at very close range… What you might term an ill-timed and cynical moment to attempt to surrender.

  27. “Shooting prisoners might even be understood as part of war. If you have prisoners but need to make an urgent retreat and have no way of taking your prisoners with you, what are you going to do? Leave them behind to be rearmed and shooting at you the next day?”

    The SS had a habit of doing this, even when not retreating:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhoudt_massacre

  28. bloke (not) in spain

    Of course, if we’re talking war crimes, the night bombing of Caen – resulting in the destruction of a major portion of the city & the death of 2000 civilians – might get a mention. But the habitual incompetence of the British military probably gives them a pass on that one.

  29. bloke (not) in spain

    The campaign, no. But civilian casualties on D-day, itself, were far higher than the total losses of all the combatants, on both sides.
    Wiki has the French killed during the pre-invasion bombing as 11-19,000. (The allies lost 4414 in the landings) For injured, we’ll never really know. For military personnel there’ll always be someone keeping score. Armys document. Civilians don’t get the same attention.

  30. bloke (not) in spain

    Here’s something to ponder on. In the entire war the French civilians suffered 390,000 killed. More than the British military in all theaters. French military dead raises the total to 600,000.
    What you get for being cheese eating surrender monkeys, I suppose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *