That's the beauty of authoritarian state - people who did the job had no choice, authority who ordered had no sympathy. E.g. helicopter pilots summoned from Baltic states didn't even know where they were flying or what will be the task. And even if they knew, do you think they could argue not to participate? In this sense slavery could be called "strength" of some country because it allows unprecedented workforce mobilization.
Think about how many people take jobs they don't like: why did they choose it? Pretending like you have a "choice" when the other choice is dying/suffering, is harmful to growth imo.
I'm not commenting on the SU fetishism in this thread, but just making a general statement.
Most people join the military at a young age, when their brains aren't fully developed, so stating "Well, they shouldn't have signed up if they didn't want to die a horrible, unpredictable death" is easy to state, but hard to wrap your head around at that age. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Really? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia#Late_So... "The late Soviet Armed Forces were manned by mandatory draft (with some exceptions) for all able-bodied males for 2 years (3 years for seagoing parts of the Navy and Border troops), based on the 1967 Law on Universal Military Service"
I'm unclear from the article whether this was discontinued in 1989, but chernobyl was 1986 so that's moot.
Now you're trying to deflect and act like I'm arguing about whether or not conscription existed, which is nowhere near the point I was countering.
> Now you're trying to deflect and act like I'm arguing about whether or not conscription existed
I thought you were saying they had a choice to join up, I said they certainly didn't. I guess I misunderstood your point. No offence.