This seems a bit too convenient a spread to be as simple as that. The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious. Seeing as the second red one is Ukraine and all of the west is yellow, while Russia, Iran, China, India etc are green, there very likely is context that isn’t being given to us, either intentionally or by accident.
Edit: With Russia, China, India, especially, I mean their adventures with oppression of minorities and unequality in general between cultural groups or heritages. I’m not saying the West is without fault or anything, but clearly the ones voting green are neither. They probably wouldn’t vote against their own alignments here unless it’s just word salad without meaning or responsibilities. Which is something I’m confident would lead a lot of Europe at least not accept it because it’s just a watered down version of something actually desirable.
Whataboutism
I think you dont know what that means
Lol. Don’t worry, I know that, in practice, it just means “any critism of the West”
Russia, India, and China don’t have a “nazi” or “neo-nazi” problem. It looks like the resolution was specifically against that, so stop "whatabout"ing this shit and acknowledge the western countries have fucked up on this vote.
This is a quote from the resolution:
contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
It’s not specifically against nazis. It’s against things like putting minorities into labour camps, jails, etc. You know, the kind of thing a lot of the places that voted green actively do this very moment.
But let’s not let that bring our great ideals down. Surely they truly are against the very thing they do, they just can’t help themselves and need the rest of the world to make them stop. Or something?
Which one of the green countries is currently doing what?
Now do one about dictatorship and judicial independence. See how the map looks. These are just bullshit virtue signaling resolutions that have no impact on anything.
The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious
These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.
Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise
Do let me know if you have the time to read it. I’ll do the same if I find some myself.
Precisely the Russian rhetoric on and around the Ukrainian war was what got me suspicious.
It could be that western countries just generally are not against nazis or neo-nazis and actively shoot down resolutions against negative things about nazis. That is not however my experience at all, or the de facto state of the law in many countries, such as Germany, that very strongly condemn any nazi associations or symbolism as unlawful. Do note that they also abstained for this one. There’s a reason for that, and while I could be entirely off base, I’m pretty sure it’s not that the western democracies just like nazis and Russia for example is just so nice and honorful to dare go against the western consensus on liking nazis.
I’ve read the resolution, and I don’t see anything in the document that I disagree with. There are some references to the Durban conference in there that I don’t fully understand, but from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article it seems that people’s main gripe with it is its anti-zionist position (a position I vehemently agree with, Zionism is colonialism and genocide). That, to me, seems like a reasonable enough explanation as to why the US would vote against this resolution (I hope I don’t need to, but I’m happy to elaborate), and that, in turn, explains why client states voted against (or abstained).
I do acknowledge that the rhetoric closely mirrors Russia’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda, but just because a bad person misuses “nazis bad” for nefarious purposes does not make “nazis bad” any less true.
It’s a bit ironic on some level when talking about an anti-nazi resolution, but having looked into it, I’ve arrived at the position that the votes are the way they are because the US tends to vote in favor of Zionism.
Its true though no matter how you feel about it. Proven by real scientific evidence.
You can try to disprove it if you feel its wrong but you probably won’t be able to.
The problem is likely the many references to the Durban Conference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001
From the article:
NGO repudiations of the NGO Forum’s Declaration
Several NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, disassociated themselves from the language of the NGO Forum’s Declaration that dealt with Israel and with Jews.[5][26] The Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa reportedly distributed copies of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[27]
reportedly
Weasel words
OP made Crimea green. There’s definitely an agenda here And they gave away their country of origin with that little switch.
Look at the timestamp the map is after 2014
Was gonna say this, although not the part about their “country of origin” (Russian does not automatically mean gullible).
Why the hell did Russia vote better than Europe? We need some better people in office.
Its because europe is ruled by the usa empire
Check the map closely, certain parts of Ukraine are green. This is Russian propaganda.
No its fully covered in red
You’re really not beating the Nazi allegations.
oh democracy my failed god
Either the map is wrong, or the header is wrong, because that is not Germany.
Equal shame for all the countries that abstained. There is not a damn chance any country is genuinely unsure how they want to vote so an abstain vote in this case is just “I want to vote against but am too embarrassed to.”
Which happens to be the entire West. Surprise surprise
It’s not a surprise, really. The proposal was sponsored by the Russian Federation and includes several talking point that they have since actively used to justify their fucking invasion of Ukraine (I.e. Nazis working to disrupt democracies cross-border).
We had a shitstorm in Poland over this, it’s extremely shameful that a country that suffered so much from nazism did voted like that, but government just responded “EU decided this”
0·3 days agoAbsolutely, the only country that might have suffered more at the hands of the Nazis is the Soviet Union. In raw numbers Poland has the 3rd largest number of deaths in WW2, in % of 1939 population it is first.
Tell me about it. NZ has the most right-wing neo-liberal pro-American-politicking cabinet we’ve had in a long long time. (The PM is also so incompetent he’s polling the lowest approval we’ve had for a long time, possibly ever). They got in power off the backs of post-Covid economic hardship, despite having no proposed solutions other than funding landlords and cutting environmental policy.
If it had been put to the citizens, I believe we would’ve been for it. But the current cabinet doesn’t want to piss off American partners no doubt, hoping abstaining let’s them sit on the fence a little longer while pretending we’re ultimately n9t the bad guy. That will be the reason for most of those abstaining.
I’m disgusted.
Condemning it is not a crime in the UK.
Description mentions Germany but it’s not highlighted like the others?
The map seems to be rage bait. Israel is green, the UK and Germany are yellow, and Ukraine went red.
The image contains the date “November 15, 2018”, which doesn’t match up with anything in the UN Digital Library about that resolution. But if I assume it is the 2018 vote, we should look at A/RES/73/157 voting data, which does seem to line up.
The same name resolution came up for another vote on December 16, 2021. It seems like the vote went more or less the same way.
Here is the report of 3rd Committee.
The copy of resolution.
The same resolution comes up for vote each year, since it was introduced back in 2013
So…. Anyone want to sponsor me for a work visa outside the USA? This ship is sinking and I’m surrounded by racist assholes apparently, and I want out!! Seriously….
Getting a TEFL/TESOL certification is probably easiest way to go about it. Most countries require a bachelor’s degree to be there on a work visa outside of some circumstances. It still wont be “easy” but itll be easier than trying to sell a skillset thats redundant in a EFL country. Beware of scams and look for accreditation
I’m guessing, based purely on the countries highlighted, that this is a Russian sponsored resolution.
There are plenty of more genuine resolutions you could’ve picked, but they wouldn’t have fit your narrative as well. Please don’t defend Russia’s lies just to embellish your point.
You would be correct: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1654458?ln=en&v=pdf
At the 44th meeting, on 6 November, the representative of the Russian
Federation, on behalf of Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia
(Plurinational State of), Burundi, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Eritrea, Kazakhstan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mali, Myanmar,
Nicaragua, the Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, the Sudan, the Syrian
Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam
and Zimbabwe, introduced a draft resolution […]At the [48th] meeting, the representative of the Russian Federation made a statement.
Also at the same meeting, statements were made by the representatives of Kyrgyzstan (on behalf of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, composed of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), Belarus, the Russian Federation and South Africa.
I think its more likely that the abstaining countries rely on America for trade or military in some way and don’t want to aggravate them politically but clearly aren’t willing to vote alongside them.
Or, as the other (better informed) guy said. This resolution equates tearing down soviet monuments to be Nazism.
That by extension means it equates Ukraine (the country partially occupied and fraudulently annexed by Russia) with Nazism. Countries which respect Ukraine’s sovereignty (and have enough skepticism of Russia to read more than the title) wouldn’t want to vote against (because of the title) but also wouldn’t want to vote in favor.
Tearing down monuments to WW2 veterans who fought against the Nazis certainly suggests a certain affinity with the Nazis.
Stalin was a Nazi ally from 1939 to 1941.
Incorrect, and it’s people saying things like this that is why we should combat efforts to rewrite history.
They divided Poland between them.
And Poland and Germany divided Czechoslovakia between them. Were they allies too?
It doesn’t. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Monuments that glorify Soviets might be torn down for a plethora of reasons that don’t have anything to do with nazism and have a lot to do with Soviet atrocities.
I’m comfortable to say people tearing down memorials to the soldiers who faught against the Nazis to replace them with memorials to the people who fought for the Nazis makes you a Nazi.
Feddit continuing not to beat the charges.
Keep spreading Russian propaganda if it makes you happy. Still doesn’t mean you’re right.
“Russian propaganda!” is the BlueMAGA equivalent of “fake news!”
Says the user spreading g*rman propaganda
Note that Crimea is not counted as Ukrainian in this map. Makes you wonder.
Its a normal map not a “what the burgers would like to have” map
We can’t condemn the Nazis because if we condemn the Nazis people will think we’re Nazis. When people see that we won’t condemn the Nazis, that’s how they’ll know we aren’t Nazis.
Lol stay stupid patriot
I’m guessing, based purely on the countries highlighted, that this is a Russian sponsored resolution.
Pretty funny how you saw that all of Latin America, Africa, and Asia voted against genocide, and your first reaction is to call them russian bots.
He was right though…
More that Ukraine voted against it and every single Western country abstained. Was I wrong though?
This is a weak ass excuse collaborator. You get the pit too.
The resolution was explicitly designed to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, an act condemned by 141 countries (ES-11/1) including many that voted for the above resolution. Voting for a resolution condemning Nazi’s, written by a Nazi regime and designed to frame their opponents as Nazi’s themself … I’ll leave it up to you on how you would view that.
If you want to frame the West as evil, you can without being misleading, ES-10/21 is a resolution drafted by Jordan calling for the condemnation of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. That was abstained on by most Western countries and voted against by the USA and Hungary. Many countries cited wanting an “explicit condemnation of Hamas” as their reason, and that is what I’d call a weak ass excuse.
The first instance of this resolution is A/C.3/68/L.65 from November 2013.
I did not know that and don’t know enough to respond. I’ll leave this conversation to the other guy who actually knows what he’s talking about.
Not knowing enough to respond never stopped you before, given you were making claims about the content of a resolution you admitted you didn’t know the content of
Owned
I would like to encourage more people on this platform to humbly bow out and respond with integrity when they don’t know versus the “20 replies of arguments” that drown out the conversation. You might be correct but I think your response is in poor form (unless we’re just celebrating being the lowest parts of social media).
And all it took was someone responding with actual information, instead of 20 people responding with a straw man attack.
You admitted you never even read the resolution in the first place, and just assumed it based on “Russia bad”. No one strawmanned you, you just shout the name of random fallacies as a thought terminating cliche
“If Russia says Nazis are bad, than Nazis must be good!”
Liberal politics is just reaction.
I love it, it leads to epic blunders like having an homage to a nazi in Canada because he fought the russians.
Yeah, but they just expunge that from their collective memory.
There’s at least one Nazi who fought in the SS buried in the Arlington Cemetery in DC.
It is funny because tankie thought is literal positive reaction to anything Russia and China does. Your comment shows it is also pure projection.
“it’s funny because I’ve strawmanned you”
Yes, that is exactly what you did. Repeating it does also make it funnier.
I was paraphrasing you. Given that you were the one strawmanning, that should have been obvious.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia, for example, for being deeply socially reactionary, or China for engaging with trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Marxists don’t accept prevailing western narratives surrounding enemies of the US Empire, which anti-Marxists try to simplify into simple reaction against the US Empire, rather than actually engage with the reasoning for supporting, say, China overall fronted by Marxists.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia
That remains to be seen. Hasn’t happened yet. But perhaps some day?
This is deliberate ignorance. Marxists see the modern Russian Federation as a right-wing, Nationalist Capitalist country that is socially reactionary. Marxists tend to support Russia’s movements against the US Empire, which is seen as a much greater evil, and appreciate ties to countries like China that may have a positive influence on Russia reverting to Socialism, but there is much to be critical of in Russia. When you have to make up your opponent’s position, you’re deliberately lying to others, and frequently yourself as well.
How do Marxists see the USSR, China under Mao, Hoxhua, North Korea, Pol Pot, and Sendero Luminoso?
Let me guess:
USSR and Mao generally good, particularly given circumstances; Hoxhua who?; North Korea better than South Korea (and PRC even today is better than ROC); Pol Pot wasn’t a true Scotsman; and you like at least a few RATM songs.
You’re pretty close, generally. Pol Pot wasn’t a Marxist at all, though, the Khmer Rouge rejected Marxism, and his form of “communism” was deeply anti-materialist and was idealist in nature. He was also stopped by the Vietnamese. Hoxha is Hoxha. The Korea bit and USSR/PRC bits are of course oversimplified, but broadly accepted as correct.
Turns out when you refuse to open your eyes, you don’t see things. What a shock.
I said the resolution is bad, not the principle. You’re again misrepresenting something to further your own narrative.
You are correct, see my other comment.
If you read the resolution and the answers of national governments why they abstained, the answer is found in points 4 and 14 of the resolution, where everyone who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition is condemned and equivocated with nazi-sympathisers. This does include people who opportunistically fought againt the Red Army in the baltic states and Ukraine for national liberation from the USSR, but not necessarily on the german side.
This resolution is a veiled attemp to paint even the people who fought against Russia for freedom from the USSR but not for Germany as part of the Nazi movements in Soviet states that did fight for Germany.
“The resolution is bad because it condemns people who fought alongside the Nazis to genocide the USSR.”
Not beating the Nazi allegations.
“People who fought for freedom from the USSR were genociding it.”
This is just the European equivelant of defending the confederates, except the confederates weren’t allied with the literal Nazis.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
Maybe we can get it proposed by Israel instead, then it would be a good guy presenting it because they only invade non-white countries
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
And please stop lumping me in with the imperialist crowd. I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
Because NATO put a bunch of Nazis in its command structure and the U.S. has backed various fascists countless times in the last 80 years, so it would put the western alliance in an embarrassing spot.
That’s like half of politics: trying to embarass your opponents into backing off various positions.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
“Unlike you, I believe that all lives matter, not just black ones”
I never said the content of the resolution is good. I haven’t read it. I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it. And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Just because a country is anti-American doesn’t mean it’s anti-evil. I shouldn’t need to explain this. I don’t know why I even tried. This isn’t worth it. You’re not acting in good faith. Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”. Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it.
Ok, I’m just going to not read your comments and assume they’re bad because your a westerner.
the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
What a disgusting thing to say.
You’re not acting in good faith.
Can I ask a serious question? Who is it that told you idiots that any disagreement is “bad faith”? Because you all deploy this exact phrase, word for word, any time anyone disagrees with you. It’s your favourite thought terminating cliche.
Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”.
It’s a completely apt equivalence, you just don’t want it to be.
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
What the fuck is this complete non-sequitor? Not to mention it runs counter to your position up to know (“if Russia says Nazis bad, then Nazis good”)
the world isn’t black and white.
Your whole argument is that Russia is bad, so anything they do is bad! That’s the most black and white argument imaginable!
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
Google Satre’s quote about anti-Semites
Russia is at war with nazis currently. Of course they have the most to gain from condemning nazism.
And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Elaborate?
- Expresses deep concern about increased frequency of attempts and activities intended to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War, as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons, and in this regard urges States to fully comply with their relevant obligations, inter alia, under article 34 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 194
Clearly designed to enforce Russian rethoric and force the glorification of USSR. Not surprised it’s voted against by Ukraine.
Based if true.
Yeah, how dare they celebrate fighting against the Nazis
You sound like MAGA. Create your imaginary “Trannies” and fight against it. Grow up
Fyi accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being the same isn’t an effective rhetorical strategy, it just makes it seem like you’re too stupid to differentiate between them
And you sound like MAGA: supporting Nazis.
Statement of the Spanish public TV RTVE in Eurovision
Wasn’t that UN resolution’s one of the definitions of Nazism, that “the belief that the Ukrainian language and people are not a Leninist fabrication, to break the unity of the Russian empire”?
Not as far as i can see.
It is introduced by Russia and the main problem seems to be that any sort of collaborator with any sort of Nazi organization is considered to be jus the same. The problem with that is, that a number of anti Soviet groups did that as well, which now are seen as heros for their fight for independence of some formerly Soviet countries. That is particularily true for Ukraine, as Stalin did commit mass murder only a few years before the Nazis did invade Ukraine. Ukraine was also occupied by German forces in WW1 and although it was an occupation Stalin was seen as worse. So a lot of them were initially rather happy about it. That quickly changed though.
“The problem with the resolution is that it says Nazis are bad, even when they’re killing Russians!”
The fact that Nazi collaborators are seen as heroes is a problem. The Communists were in no way comparable in evil to the Nazis, the Communists were a massive force for progress as compared to their peers, while the Nazis invented industrialized mass murder. Further, the majority of Ukrainians actually believe the breakup of the USSR was a bad thing.
The reason is simple, transitioning from Socialism to Capitalism resulted in an estimated 7 million excess deaths globally, a huge spike in poverty and wealth inequality, destruction of safety nets, and a rise in far-right nationalists directly funded and supported by the West. This is why Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera are seeing resurging popularity in Ukraine, and this is a bad thing.
Further, the 1930s famine in Ukraine was by no means an intentional mass murder, such claims originate with the Nazis trying to discredit the Soviet Union. Even the Wikipedia page on Holodomor recognizes that claims of intentional murder are dubious at the most generous:
While most scholars are in consensus that the main cause of the famine was largely man-made, it remains in dispute whether the Holodomor was intentional, whether it was directed at Ukrainians, and whether it constitutes a genocide, the point of contention being the absence of attested documents explicitly ordering the starvation of any area in the Soviet Union.
The truth of the matter is that it was a horrible tragedy that got spun by the Nazis as evidence of the evils of the Soviet Union, as it was free propaganda to paint it as such by the Nazis, and useful for the anti-communist west to spread the Nazi narrative as from a Realpolitik perspective any means of discrediting Socialism was a good means. This is further affirmed by the openining of the Soviet Archives and the wealth of information confirmed and denied by them.
So the Holodomor was a sign of progress?
Also the Great Purge was not mass murder?
Just saying there were reasons for a lot of people to not like Stalin. You know enemy of my enemy is a friend kind of situation.
The famine in the 1930s was the last major famine outside of wartime in Russia and the surrounding areas until the collapse of the USSR, in a country where under the Tsar famine was regular and common. As a consequence of providing free and high quality healthcare, lowering working hours, improving labor conditions, and achieving food security, life expectancy doubled from the 30s to the 70s. The famine was a tragedy, but the Soviets were also responsible for ending famine and dramatically improving the lives of the working class.
As for the Great Purge, that wasn’t something targeting Ukrainians specifically, but all manner of criminals. The purges themselves usually just meant expulsion from the party, but often criminal charges were levied against former members of the White Army, Nazi collaborators, rapists, corrupt officials, and other serious crimes. 700,000 were condemned to death, with many of those condemned being aquitted and not actually executed, though it is true that there was unfortunately excess.
You’ll want to read this excerpt from the book The Triumph of Evil, specifically page 74:
The claim that Stalin and other Soviet leaders killed millions (Conquest, 1990) also appears to be wildly exaggerated. More recent evidence from the Soviet archives opened up by the anticommunist Yeltsin government indicate that the total number of death sentences (including of both existing prisoners and those outside captivity) over the 1921-1953 interval (covering the period of Stalin’s partial and complete rule) was between 775,866 and 786,098 (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). Given that the archive data originates from anti-Stalin (and even anticommunist) sources, it is extremely unlikely that they underestimate the true number (Thurston, 1996). In addition, the Soviet Union has long admitted to executing at least 12,733 people between 1917 and 1921, mostly during the Foreign Interventionist Civil War of 1918-22, although it is possible that as many as 40,000 more may have been executed unofficially (Andics, 1969).
These data would seem to imply about 800,000 executions. The figure of 800,000 may greatly overestimate the number of actual executions, as it includes many who were sentenced to death but who were not actually caught or who had their sentences reduced (Getty, Rittersporn, and Zemskov, 1993). In fact, Vinton (1993) has provided evidence indicating that the number of executions was significantly below the number of civilian prisoners sentenced to death in the Soviet Union, with only 7,305 executions in a sample of 11,000 prisoners authorized to be executed in 1940 (or scarcely 600/o ). In addition, most (681,692) of the 780,000 or so death sentences passed under Stalin were issued during the 1937-38 period (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993), when Soviet paranoia about foreign subversion reached its zenith due to a 1936 alliance between Nazi Germany and fascist Japan that was specifically directed against the Soviet Union (Manning, 1993) and due to a public 1936 resolution by a group of influential anti-Stalin foreigners (the Fourth International which was allied with the popular but exiled Russian dissident Leon Trotsky) advocating the overthrow of the Soviet government by illegal means (Glotzer, 1968).
Stalin initially set a cap of 186,500 imprisonments and 72,950 death penalties for a 1937 special operation to combat this threat that was to be carried out by local 3-man tribunals called ''troikas" (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). As the tribunals passed death sentences before the accused had even been arrested, local authorities requested increases in their own quotas (Knight, 1993), and there was an official request in 1938 for a doubling of the amount of prisoner transport that had been initially requisitioned to carry out the original campaign “quotas” of the tribunals (Getty, Ritterspom, and Zemskov, 1993). However, even if there had been twice as many actual • executions as originally planned, the number would still be less than 150,000. Many of those sentenced by the tribunals may have escaped capture, and many more may have had their death sentence refused or revoked by higher authorities before arrest/execution could take place, especially since Stalin later realized that excesses had been committed in the 1937-38 period, had a number of convictions overturned, and had many of the responsible local leaders punished (Thurston, 1996)."
This is why relying exclusively on Wikipedia is silly, do some actual reading. A solid rule of thumb with respect to any Wikipedia article on enemies of the US is to look at where the figures and sources come from and analyze them yourself, as you can see Wikipedia made the error of conflating condemnations with executions.
Your entire point, though, relies on painting the Communists as comparable evils to the Nazis, which is quantitatively and qualitatively divorced from reality. Again, the Nazis industrialized mass murder deliberately, and figures like Bandera sided with them deliberately against the Soviets, who were a force for good. Upholding Nazi sympathizers is a bad thing.
Your entire point, though, relies on painting the Communists as comparable evils to the Nazis, which is quantitatively and qualitatively divorced from reality. Again, the Nazis industrialized mass murder deliberately, and figures like Bandera sided with them deliberately against the Soviets, who were a force for good. Upholding Nazi sympathizers is a bad thing.
Just to be clear, as in my initial post:
So a lot of them were initially rather happy about it. That quickly changed though.
I pretty much said that Stalin was mass murderer and did not run Ukraine very well. I do not think any of what you wrote really disproves that. You do not need to be on Nazi level evil, to be evil.
We are also talking about modern day Russia introducing the resolution for a reason. Basically it would be Bandera wanted an independent Ukraine, so everybody who wants an independent Ukraine is a Nazi. If the West agrees with that resolution, then that would be used. This way they choose to be absent, as to not be in that vote.
The “lot of Ukrainians” that saw the USSR as worse than the Nazis were the far-right nationalists in Ukraine spearheaded by Bandera. A “lot of USians” were certainly upset at ending slavery, to the point of armed struggle, but that doesn’t make them correct, either. Bandera was a far-right nationalist that is supported by the modern far-right nationalists in Ukraine, which is why there’s a problem with Nazi brigades like Azov increasing in relevance in Ukrainian politics post-Maidan.
Further, again, the Soviets were unquestionably the most progressive force throughout the 20th century, from supporting revolutionary movements in Cuba, Algeria, South Africa, Vietnam, Korea, China, and more, to supporting Palestinians against genocide at the hands of Israel, to being responsible for 90% of the total Nazis killed in World War II and saving the world from fascism, to doubling life expectancies, over tripling literacy rates, democratizing the economy, and dramatically lowering wealth inequality.
Yes, there absolutely were problems faced internally and externally, and there were mistakes and excesses. These pale in comparison to the deliberate acts of mass genocide perpetrated by Western Europe and the US throughout the 20th century and today, all while the USSR was under constant siege and the Western world reaped the spoils of Imperialism.
Bandera and neo-Nazism are tied to Ukrainian politics. Nationalists are in control of politics, and the Banderites make up the majority of Nationalists in Ukraine. This is a sad reality that must be confronted, no matter what your stance on the modern Russo-Ukrainian war is, and it ties directly to Ukraine and the US being the only countries to vote against this resolution.
As someone from the U.S., given the history we know about the Trail of Tears and trying to erase Native Americans from existence, this isn’t surprising in the least. Sad, yes, but not surprising.
Just like all the colonial powers voting “I don’t know about this one dawg” because they know their history
Yep we boned it, learn from us and be better.
I hate to tell you this, but basically every country has the same story, except the very young. They don’t need to learn from our history; they should learn from their own.
“everyone else does it to!” Is always the favourite defence of abusers
…wait, you thought this was a defense? I’m sorry, perhaps I worded it poorly then.
If you weren’t defending it, in would say you definitely worded it poorly
Now thats some biiiig projection
Lots of countries committed colonialism, not many countries committed genocide on the native population and stole their land to create and expand their nation. The U.S. and Israel are members of a short list.
I was more referring to general genocide than specifically native populations–but even that there is no shortage of countries like Australia, Canada, and japan that have done as such.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
There is a depressingly high number.
Ok? Those are the ones we were talking about on this map, youre moving the goalposts from “every” to “yeah the whole international community” which was the point to begin with. These countries get on their high horse when they have an exceptionally genocidal history.
These countries get on their high horse when they have an exceptionally genocidal history.
My point was meant to point out how countries with genocidal histories like to point out others as the ones to avoid repeating examples of rather than their own history.
You’re being straight up racist assuming it’s only white western countries commit genocides.
Lmao and there it is. Racism against the whites.
Lots of countries committed colonialism, not many countries committed genocide on the native population and stole their land to create and expand their nation. The U.S. and Israel are members of a short list.
shit amerikkkans say
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
What makes you think it’s not true? A gander through the history of genocide shows how horrifyingly common it is
It’s horrifyingly common among European countries. That’s not “every country” unless you think only westerners are civilized.
Somali, Chile, Argentina, south Africa, Japan, Korea, China. It’s horrifyingly common no matter what area.
South African apartheid was a Dutch colonial project. There’s been no genocide in China and the one in Korea was perpetrated by the US.
Also, what part of genocide do you think is about being civilized…?
Either you have the shittiest reading comprehension or you’re deliberately misrepresenting the argument to twist it into such a comical interpretation. You’re the one that said “every country” and proceeded to link to a NATOpedia page that fails to list a whole bunch of European/US genocides and even then is short, oh, about 96% of countries on earth.
Despite numerous instances of racial discrimination in many Latin American countries (most often at the hands of CIA backed organizations like Pinochet’s government or the Brazilian junta) the fact is that none of these countries were founded on a war in favor of maintaining slavery and expanding into indigenous lands. In fact, most were founded by the descendants of indigenous peoples casting off the their colonial masters.
To say that every country has been founded via genocide is to imply this is just a normal, unavoidable thing, which is genocide apologia. I wish westerners would stop whitewashing their Nazi ass societies like smearing the rest of us is a good alternative to doing something about the legacy of violence you were raised by.
It’s funny because it’s the same map as all the “Free world vs unfree world” maps
