Rupa, another excellent article. Speaking as a Canadian, I’m confused how our leaders forgot that Canada and the Soviet Union were allies in WWII, and if you were a male Ukrainian or ethic German living in the Soviet Union at that time, your choice was conscription to the Soviet army or volunteer for the German army to fight the oppresso…
Rupa, another excellent article. Speaking as a Canadian, I’m confused how our leaders forgot that Canada and the Soviet Union were allies in WWII, and if you were a male Ukrainian or ethic German living in the Soviet Union at that time, your choice was conscription to the Soviet army or volunteer for the German army to fight the oppressor. But, according to Rota, Trudeau and Zelenskyy, Hunka was a freedom fighter against Russia?? The stupidity and carelessness in Ottawa is unbelievable. Canada accepted many, many European immigrants after WWII who had to make tough choices during the war. I’m not willing to judge people placed in situations I cannot bear to imagine.
My issue with your post is about tough choices. A legitimate tough choice is:
1. Do I send my son to work in Germany because we are starving?
2. Should we flee east to Siberia?
But plenty of Ukrainians were happy to help the Germans murder Jews, for a sack of potatoes or sugar, or for free. Previously, the word pogrom became widespread after violence towards Jews in the Ukraine. So yes, you can judge some actions of people with less nuance.
But do we know this guy’s story specifically? I heard he was part of an SS unit, but do we have knowledge that he did anything other than kill Russians?
Yes, I take your point. I guess what came to mind is the terror and tragedy Ukrainians lived through during the Holodomor genocide in the 1930s, even resorting to cannibalism to stay alive, or selling body parts of their recently deceased family members. (Look it up on wikipedia if you are unfamiliar with that tragedy.) Then, ten years later, these people see a chance for freedom, although misguided. With the little I've learned from first-hand accounts of survivors of Stalinist tyranny, I'm not sure that all of us would turn out to be heroes when placed in their shoes. This is not a defence of violence, only a recognition that we all have the capability for violence.
My family is from there, I don’t need to look it up.
I think the Ukraine has historically been the most anti-Semitic place on earth. Maybe because they were never expelled like in Spain or England. I just think that culturally or religiously Ukrainians had even more engrained animus toward Jews. The stories of cannibalism are horrid from that time period. But persecuting Jews was just somewhat standard.
Other than this I very much agree with your overall Canada assessment
If you claim to be from there, you should probably be aware that the word pogrom originated from czarist Russia in the 1880s. Here is what 5 seconds on Google can get you regarding the etymology of the term https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC . It works wonders in preventing you from coming across as having no clue what you are talking about. Note how the word Ukraine is not mentioned in the article. (Although in true Russian fashion, they do talk about the race riots in the US as pogroms).
I did not say that the word originated from Ukraine but that it became widespread after violent incidents in the Ukraine. Your link literally reads as this:
“The word entered many European languages after the famous anti-Jewish Kishinev pogrom.…the word “pogrom,” in modern history, Jewish pogroms in the South and West of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries became especially widespread”
The South and West of Russia referred to the Pale of Settlement. Which intersects with present day Ukraine and parts of Poland. Kishinev is in Moldova.
You are truly a wonder of a dumbass. But of course you linked to the Russian Wikipedia.
I guess you place Kishinev in Ukraine? Did you matriculate in the US?:) The South and West of Russia wouldn't refer to Ukraine. Poland and Belarus was the West of Russia at the time being referred to. And the South of Russia usually refers to the Caucasus, and the Russian Black Sea coast. Referring to Ukraine as the South of Russia would be like referring to Arizona as the South in the US... across the oceans, it may seem to be the same, but to someone that is up to speed you just come across as having no clue. So no, none of that is related to Ukraine. Keep on being ignorant.
What's wrong with Russian Wikipedia? You have some alternative sources or facts that contradict this article?
And leave you to wallow in ignorance, unencumbered by actual facts?:) That's your preference, to keep holding on to incorrect conclusions when confronted by facts, rather than to adjust conclusions based on how the real world actually is?
Making legitimate “tough choices” does not include joining the Waffen SS, whose prime mission was the brutal extermination of Jews. It was well known then. To volunteer for the Waffen SS was not just to sympathize with Jewish genocide, it was wanting to be part of all the lovely action.
It is my understanding that there were Jewish collaborators in Ukraine in WWII and afterwards. I cannot imagine what would create that scenario. Nor can I fathom spending huge amounts of national treasure to the same country as it still suffers from almost schizoid contradictions. No wonder corruption thrives.
Sadly for some, one does what they need to do to survive. Others did it for money, power, and status among the Gestapo. Personally, I think if a jewish person did collaborate, it was probably out of the possibility that they and their families would be spared deportation.
Sadly though, after watching the movie Conspiracy, about the Wannsee Conference...There was no possibility of any Jewish person surviving.
I think that is true CM. People do what they have to do. Also the Soviets were viewed as oppressors, rightfully so, and many Ukrainians viewed Nazis as liberators initially but apparently Ukraine is where Hitler perfected his plan for Jewish annihilation.
Lynne are you referring to kapos?Which the Germans used throughout their conquered lands. Or something else? Also curious what a Jewish collaborator after WWII would refer to
which is chilling beyond words. I have no doubt that there were Jewish people who collaborated with the Nazis out of a sense of survival. For that I offer no condemnation.
A summary of my past and recent reading, is that the Ukraine, a region, not a nation, has throughout history been dominated by various groups. The modern Ukraine was a founding member of the USSR. Stalin's activities there were truly atrocious. He starved a vast number of people with his economic policies, arguably intentionally. He promptly replaced those souls with pro-Soviet, Russian immigrants in the area known as eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Ukrainian nationalism arose and resisted Soviet domination; Stepan Bandera is the face of that resistance and he has a checkered past, including Nazi collaboration. As Hitler came to power the Soviets engaged him and the Ukraine was a trophy for both. The Nazis occupied Ukraine for three years and were initially viewed by Ukrainians, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, as liberators. Thus Jewish collaboration. Then came the events of the linked article which suggest that the Nazi attempted extermination of Jews from Europe began in Ukraine. I can only assume after thst any Jewish collaboration was coerced. But as the Soviets repelled the Nazis you have to wonder if the Soviets were seen as benefactors. I cannot locate it at the moment but I have read that Ukraine was a refuge for escaping Nazis after WWII. The recent Canadian hoopla would lend support to that in my estimation.After the fall of the USSR Ukraine became the modern country it is now. She was heavily armed with nuclear weapons and neither NATO nor Russia wanted that. Talks were had between Ukraine, the US, the UK, and Russia with the upshot being an agreement that Ukraine would surrender her nuclear weapons and would remain neutral. In return her territorial sovereignty was recognized. Had she maintained that neutrality it seems to me she would have been in a position of extraordinary power. Instead she is known almost universally as a nation of extraordinary corruption and corruptibility. That being said, given her history just in the 20th century it is not surprising. Ukraine could not employ the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Either way. If the enemy is the USSR you make friends with Nazis? If the enemy is Germany, you make friends with Russians? It was lose-lose. That has to blunt the national psyche.
You had a good summary going there until you got to the Russian propaganda part, and then it went off the rails. Ukraine's territorial integrity was never in question in 1994 as part of the nuclear talks. That is just fanciful imagination right there. Her territorial integrity was recognized immediately after the USSR dissolution together with Russia's, and not questioned by anyone until 2022.
Ukraine never agreed to remain neutral. She just agreed to give up nuclear weapons based on security guarantees provided by Russia, the US, and the UK, who each agreed to respect her sovereignty. An agreement that was promptly forsaken by Russia in 2004 when it attempted to sway the Ukrainian presidential elections in favor of its preferred corrupt-as-hell, twice-convicted criminal candidate Yanukovich, which prompted the 2004 Orange revolution. Since then, Russia had a fixation on getting their guy installed, which they managed to do finally in 2010. He proceeded to rob the country blind for the next 4 years with his cronies, when the next election came around, in 2014, Russia again spent a few billion dollars in cash to buy off the votes. It is at that point that the majority of Ukrainians, who voted against him, recognized that they would most likely not survive another 4 years of Yanukovich robbing the country naked, rebelled, and he escaped to Russia, leaving his houses with pure-gold toilet bowls behind.
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the EXISTING BORDERS [emphasis added] of Ukraine."
Also, saying "the rest is flawed" without providing factual basis for that statement does not make it so. Only in snowflake safe spaces to they get to stomp their feet and make pretend the world is how they would like it to be.
How typical, nothing to say on the merits, so switch to ad hominem and go back to your safe space. Did arguing with adults using facts hurt your feelings?
This is standard boilerplate language that does not mean the sovereignty was ever in question. Similar to when the US signs a treaty of mutual friendship and alliance with Canada, for instance, it will have similar language. That would not mean that prior to that treaty the friendship or sovereignty or independence were ever in question.
Spending 5 seconds googling gets you, well you - a person who illustrates beautifully that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Assuming you vote. And Wikipedia? Really? No need to respond further to your erroneous, yet again, argument. Continue to bask in your ignorance.
Rupa, another excellent article. Speaking as a Canadian, I’m confused how our leaders forgot that Canada and the Soviet Union were allies in WWII, and if you were a male Ukrainian or ethic German living in the Soviet Union at that time, your choice was conscription to the Soviet army or volunteer for the German army to fight the oppressor. But, according to Rota, Trudeau and Zelenskyy, Hunka was a freedom fighter against Russia?? The stupidity and carelessness in Ottawa is unbelievable. Canada accepted many, many European immigrants after WWII who had to make tough choices during the war. I’m not willing to judge people placed in situations I cannot bear to imagine.
elected officials are not given a test they just get elected , ignorance of history is not a factor intelligence is not considered either
My issue with your post is about tough choices. A legitimate tough choice is:
1. Do I send my son to work in Germany because we are starving?
2. Should we flee east to Siberia?
But plenty of Ukrainians were happy to help the Germans murder Jews, for a sack of potatoes or sugar, or for free. Previously, the word pogrom became widespread after violence towards Jews in the Ukraine. So yes, you can judge some actions of people with less nuance.
But do we know this guy’s story specifically? I heard he was part of an SS unit, but do we have knowledge that he did anything other than kill Russians?
We probably do not and will not know. But I found this website informative
http://espritdecorps.ca/history-feature/whitewashing-the-ss-the-attempt-to-re-write-the-history-of-hitlers-collaborators
Yes, I take your point. I guess what came to mind is the terror and tragedy Ukrainians lived through during the Holodomor genocide in the 1930s, even resorting to cannibalism to stay alive, or selling body parts of their recently deceased family members. (Look it up on wikipedia if you are unfamiliar with that tragedy.) Then, ten years later, these people see a chance for freedom, although misguided. With the little I've learned from first-hand accounts of survivors of Stalinist tyranny, I'm not sure that all of us would turn out to be heroes when placed in their shoes. This is not a defence of violence, only a recognition that we all have the capability for violence.
My family is from there, I don’t need to look it up.
I think the Ukraine has historically been the most anti-Semitic place on earth. Maybe because they were never expelled like in Spain or England. I just think that culturally or religiously Ukrainians had even more engrained animus toward Jews. The stories of cannibalism are horrid from that time period. But persecuting Jews was just somewhat standard.
Other than this I very much agree with your overall Canada assessment
If you claim to be from there, you should probably be aware that the word pogrom originated from czarist Russia in the 1880s. Here is what 5 seconds on Google can get you regarding the etymology of the term https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC . It works wonders in preventing you from coming across as having no clue what you are talking about. Note how the word Ukraine is not mentioned in the article. (Although in true Russian fashion, they do talk about the race riots in the US as pogroms).
I did not say that the word originated from Ukraine but that it became widespread after violent incidents in the Ukraine. Your link literally reads as this:
“The word entered many European languages after the famous anti-Jewish Kishinev pogrom.…the word “pogrom,” in modern history, Jewish pogroms in the South and West of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries became especially widespread”
The South and West of Russia referred to the Pale of Settlement. Which intersects with present day Ukraine and parts of Poland. Kishinev is in Moldova.
You are truly a wonder of a dumbass. But of course you linked to the Russian Wikipedia.
I guess you place Kishinev in Ukraine? Did you matriculate in the US?:) The South and West of Russia wouldn't refer to Ukraine. Poland and Belarus was the West of Russia at the time being referred to. And the South of Russia usually refers to the Caucasus, and the Russian Black Sea coast. Referring to Ukraine as the South of Russia would be like referring to Arizona as the South in the US... across the oceans, it may seem to be the same, but to someone that is up to speed you just come across as having no clue. So no, none of that is related to Ukraine. Keep on being ignorant.
What's wrong with Russian Wikipedia? You have some alternative sources or facts that contradict this article?
typical idiot just keeps digging that hole , keep on digging
And leave you to wallow in ignorance, unencumbered by actual facts?:) That's your preference, to keep holding on to incorrect conclusions when confronted by facts, rather than to adjust conclusions based on how the real world actually is?
It's refreshing to read nuanced comments such as this. Thank you.
Making legitimate “tough choices” does not include joining the Waffen SS, whose prime mission was the brutal extermination of Jews. It was well known then. To volunteer for the Waffen SS was not just to sympathize with Jewish genocide, it was wanting to be part of all the lovely action.
I won’t condemn the guy until I get details. He joined the SS. Why? Did he commit brutal acts?
It is my understanding that there were Jewish collaborators in Ukraine in WWII and afterwards. I cannot imagine what would create that scenario. Nor can I fathom spending huge amounts of national treasure to the same country as it still suffers from almost schizoid contradictions. No wonder corruption thrives.
Sadly for some, one does what they need to do to survive. Others did it for money, power, and status among the Gestapo. Personally, I think if a jewish person did collaborate, it was probably out of the possibility that they and their families would be spared deportation.
Sadly though, after watching the movie Conspiracy, about the Wannsee Conference...There was no possibility of any Jewish person surviving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany
I think that is true CM. People do what they have to do. Also the Soviets were viewed as oppressors, rightfully so, and many Ukrainians viewed Nazis as liberators initially but apparently Ukraine is where Hitler perfected his plan for Jewish annihilation.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/ukraine-holocaust
Thanks for the reference. FWIW I do not think eugenics is a US creation. Or at least not the parts of the country with which I am familiar.
Lynne are you referring to kapos?Which the Germans used throughout their conquered lands. Or something else? Also curious what a Jewish collaborator after WWII would refer to
No. I did not even know what kapos were and in looking it up I ran across this:
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/ukraine-holocaust
which is chilling beyond words. I have no doubt that there were Jewish people who collaborated with the Nazis out of a sense of survival. For that I offer no condemnation.
A summary of my past and recent reading, is that the Ukraine, a region, not a nation, has throughout history been dominated by various groups. The modern Ukraine was a founding member of the USSR. Stalin's activities there were truly atrocious. He starved a vast number of people with his economic policies, arguably intentionally. He promptly replaced those souls with pro-Soviet, Russian immigrants in the area known as eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Ukrainian nationalism arose and resisted Soviet domination; Stepan Bandera is the face of that resistance and he has a checkered past, including Nazi collaboration. As Hitler came to power the Soviets engaged him and the Ukraine was a trophy for both. The Nazis occupied Ukraine for three years and were initially viewed by Ukrainians, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, as liberators. Thus Jewish collaboration. Then came the events of the linked article which suggest that the Nazi attempted extermination of Jews from Europe began in Ukraine. I can only assume after thst any Jewish collaboration was coerced. But as the Soviets repelled the Nazis you have to wonder if the Soviets were seen as benefactors. I cannot locate it at the moment but I have read that Ukraine was a refuge for escaping Nazis after WWII. The recent Canadian hoopla would lend support to that in my estimation.After the fall of the USSR Ukraine became the modern country it is now. She was heavily armed with nuclear weapons and neither NATO nor Russia wanted that. Talks were had between Ukraine, the US, the UK, and Russia with the upshot being an agreement that Ukraine would surrender her nuclear weapons and would remain neutral. In return her territorial sovereignty was recognized. Had she maintained that neutrality it seems to me she would have been in a position of extraordinary power. Instead she is known almost universally as a nation of extraordinary corruption and corruptibility. That being said, given her history just in the 20th century it is not surprising. Ukraine could not employ the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Either way. If the enemy is the USSR you make friends with Nazis? If the enemy is Germany, you make friends with Russians? It was lose-lose. That has to blunt the national psyche.
You had a good summary going there until you got to the Russian propaganda part, and then it went off the rails. Ukraine's territorial integrity was never in question in 1994 as part of the nuclear talks. That is just fanciful imagination right there. Her territorial integrity was recognized immediately after the USSR dissolution together with Russia's, and not questioned by anyone until 2022.
Ukraine never agreed to remain neutral. She just agreed to give up nuclear weapons based on security guarantees provided by Russia, the US, and the UK, who each agreed to respect her sovereignty. An agreement that was promptly forsaken by Russia in 2004 when it attempted to sway the Ukrainian presidential elections in favor of its preferred corrupt-as-hell, twice-convicted criminal candidate Yanukovich, which prompted the 2004 Orange revolution. Since then, Russia had a fixation on getting their guy installed, which they managed to do finally in 2010. He proceeded to rob the country blind for the next 4 years with his cronies, when the next election came around, in 2014, Russia again spent a few billion dollars in cash to buy off the votes. It is at that point that the majority of Ukrainians, who voted against him, recognized that they would most likely not survive another 4 years of Yanukovich robbing the country naked, rebelled, and he escaped to Russia, leaving his houses with pure-gold toilet bowls behind.
There, fixed it for you.
You fixed nothing for me.
The subject agreement states:
[The participants] Confirm:
1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the EXISTING BORDERS [emphasis added] of Ukraine."
https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/links/ukraine-budapest-memorandum-1994
The rest of your analysis is likewise flawed.
Also, saying "the rest is flawed" without providing factual basis for that statement does not make it so. Only in snowflake safe spaces to they get to stomp their feet and make pretend the world is how they would like it to be.
You are really start to spew and ramble now. I have no interest in a debate with an unarmed opponent.
How typical, nothing to say on the merits, so switch to ad hominem and go back to your safe space. Did arguing with adults using facts hurt your feelings?
This is standard boilerplate language that does not mean the sovereignty was ever in question. Similar to when the US signs a treaty of mutual friendship and alliance with Canada, for instance, it will have similar language. That would not mean that prior to that treaty the friendship or sovereignty or independence were ever in question.
Here is a summary of who recognized Ukraine's independence and sovereignty and when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of_Ukraine
Really, spending 5 seconds Googling will save you from sounding like you don't know what you're talking about in future comments.
Spending 5 seconds googling gets you, well you - a person who illustrates beautifully that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Assuming you vote. And Wikipedia? Really? No need to respond further to your erroneous, yet again, argument. Continue to bask in your ignorance.
Anything of substance, or you are just happy to continue in unabashed ignorance?:)
Re: Wikipedia, trying to keep it simple for you:)