Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-eu-clash-on-how-to-install-a-puppet-regime-in-ukraine-victoria-nuland/5367794

You realize that Global Research has.... no credibility with anyone whatsoever. It's a fringe media site. They're also claiming that Scotland's independence referendum failed because election rigging.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:

In the beginning the first 13 states were 13 nations formed into an alliance, but by the latter part 1800's US states were being created as administrative districts. Its strange the USA RIGHTLY put down ethnic secessionist in their own country but seem to think any band of thugs that say their a political party deserves a nation. If you compare this to the US civil war, or any civil war really, its actually quite humane.

I might point out that the US Civil war was not ethnic. There had been ethnic wars in the US, particularly between Virginia and other colonies, but the Civil War was not one of them. It was about power blocs colliding rather than ethnic entities. Men like Lee (Virginian), Stand Watie (Cherokee), and P. T. Beauregard (Creole) came from radically different cultures and racial backgrounds, but all fought for the Confederacy. The same can be said for men like Grant (American), Ely Parker (Seneca), and Thomas Francis Meagher (Rabid Irish), for the Union. Culturally and ethnically Maryland, which fought for the North, had more in common with Virginia than Pennsylvania. And Virginia itself was split in half over the issue.

As far as it being 'humane' it's only a few months old. It's actually had more casualties for Civilians than the US Civil War did in the same amount of time. Not every Civil War is like Rwanda where the war is declared, and fifteen minuets later everyone is hacking their neighbors to death with machetes.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am still not convinced Russia wants to annex Eastern Ukraine.

For not wanting to, they've replaced the government the separatists picked with one led by their lead men in annexing everyplace else they've annexed in the last few years. I'd call that a fairly clear sign.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It seems you can't make any arguments without drawing the Hitler card.

Well, when The Russians accuse the sovereign government of the Ukraine of being led by Nazis, and then they themselves crib directly from the Nazi playbook, expect to see old Hitler turn up a LOT in discussions of it.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Now you have gone from ridiculous to completely nuts.
Unlike elotar I might add, I never put forward any arguments saying: ''yes but this video was filmed in special effects studio so it is fake'' or anything like that.
Now I dare you to find a video of Russian soldiers raping and pillaging. Maybe that would finally lend some weight to your arguments.

One, that would violate quite a few rules of Dakka. Two, obviously understanding ridicule is not your strong point. I was making an absurdest exaggeration to parody how hard you'd deny Russian wrongdoing even when confronted with direct evidence.

Three you'd just claim they were actually Ukrainian soldiers in stolen Russian uniforms.

TWIMC english version of the site, where several journalist try, quite succesfully imo, to collect actual news from the conflict:

http://en.censor.net.ua/

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
The Ukraine was just a state in the USSR, it was created by Lenin and never intended to be a nation. Could you imagine if you made a state in the US a nation, how long would it last? It wouldn't, it would be absorbed into another state.

Texas.


This is to say.... ya really can't make a blanket statement about "making a state into a country" because some of them really could survive as their own country and do from OK to well.

If somebody knows can you please answer to, how similar are the Russian and Ukrainian cultures?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
The Ukraine was just a state in the USSR, it was created by Lenin and never intended to be a nation. Could you imagine if you made a state in the US a nation, how long would it last? It wouldn't, it would be absorbed into another state.

Texas.


This is to say.... ya really can't make a blanket statement about "making a state into a country" because some of them really could survive as their own country and do from OK to well.

NY and Calif would also do quite well. honestly, most of the states (other than places like Rhode Island would be pretty much OK, but they do better together.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
If somebody knows can you please answer to, how similar are the Russian and Ukrainian cultures?

Not as similar as Belarusian and Russian, but very similar nonetheless. Think of Norwegians and Swedes, but even closer. Ukrainians and Russians are genetically indistinguishable and for a large part share the same history, customs, traditions and religion. The Ukrainian language also is very easily mutually intelligible with Russian.
The clash is purely political, not ethnical or cultural. You can find many ethnic Russians that are pro-Ukraine, and many ethnic Ukrainians that are pro-Russia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I am still not convinced Russia wants to annex Eastern Ukraine.

For not wanting to, they've replaced the government the separatists picked with one led by their lead men in annexing everyplace else they've annexed in the last few years. I'd call that a fairly clear sign.

For what reason could Russia possibly even want to annex the Eastern Ukraine? If they had wanted to do so, they would have followed the same strategy there as in Crimea.
More likely Russia just wants to create a similar situation as in Georgia or simply show the Ukrainians they won't be able to move away from Russia without splitting their nation.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It seems you can't make any arguments without drawing the Hitler card.

Well, when The Russians accuse the sovereign government of the Ukraine of being led by Nazis, and then they themselves crib directly from the Nazi playbook, expect to see old Hitler turn up a LOT in discussions of it.

That is not an argument, that is a logical fallacy. Just because Russia calls the Ukrainian government nazis, doesnt mean you should call the Russian government nazis as well.
No matter which side makes the claims, any comparisons to nazis or WW2 are laughable at best. There are so much differences that you can't use WW2 or nazis to make comparisons with the current crisis in Ukraine.
Besides that, it is not the Russians, nor the seperatists that walk around waving flags like this:

Do note that this Wolfsangel is the official symbol of the Azov batallion, a military formation of the Ukrainian government that reports directly to Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Also, the US seems awfully willing to support Ukrainian neo-nazis

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Now you have gone from ridiculous to completely nuts.
Unlike elotar I might add, I never put forward any arguments saying: ''yes but this video was filmed in special effects studio so it is fake'' or anything like that.
Now I dare you to find a video of Russian soldiers raping and pillaging. Maybe that would finally lend some weight to your arguments.

One, that would violate quite a few rules of Dakka. Two, obviously understanding ridicule is not your strong point. I was making an absurdest exaggeration to parody how hard you'd deny Russian wrongdoing even when confronted with direct evidence.

Three you'd just claim they were actually Ukrainian soldiers in stolen Russian uniforms.

I gladly admit Russia's wrongdoings when there is evidence, as in the bombing of Grozny.
Problem here: There is no evidence.

I also found this interesting article from the Fiscal Times:
http://news.yahoo.com/mess-obama-made-way-called-094500994.html;_ylt=AwrBJR8TbA5UuCcAs5DQtDMD

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
The Ukraine was just a state in the USSR, it was created by Lenin and never intended to be a nation. Could you imagine if you made a state in the US a nation, how long would it last? It wouldn't, it would be absorbed into another state.

Texas.


This is to say.... ya really can't make a blanket statement about "making a state into a country" because some of them really could survive as their own country and do from OK to well.

NY and Calif would also do quite well. honestly, most of the states (other than places like Rhode Island would be pretty much OK, but they do better together.

Ehh, I would be OK with putting NY there, but definitely NOT California.... They have to "steal" too much water, and import too many goods from elsewhere to really be self sufficient enough to survive in any state closely resembling what they do now.

I mean, they would appear to be on the verge of total collapse just from a drought, how would they handle other emergencies?

But, this is all ultimately a discussion for another thread

Do note that this Wolfsangel is the official symbol of the Azov batallion, a military formation of the Ukrainian government that reports directly to Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Also, the US seems awfully willing to support Ukrainian neo-nazis

I imagine a meeting Ukrainian militia leaders must be like blazing sattles, Nazis, Jihadist, Israeli mercenaries, Blackwater, and thugs who just like to kill, you wonder how the hell these guys found each other.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
For what reason could Russia possibly even want to annex the Eastern Ukraine? If they had wanted to do so, they would have followed the same strategy there as in Crimea.

Well, let's see, control of the bulk of the Ukraines gas fields, to create a land corridor to Crimea, to bypass the Ukraine pipeline and sell gas via to Europe via third parties. There are a couple right there.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

That is not an argument, that is a logical fallacy. Just because Russia calls the Ukrainian government nazis, doesnt mean you should call the Russian government nazis as well.

Well, the mass graves aside....

No, a Reductio ad Hitlerum would require me to accuse you of having the same views as Adolf Hitler or make a comparison between something totally unrelated to Nazis. As you yourself take great pains to point out in your very next sentence, there are connections, real or assumed, between Nazism and the conflict in the Ukraine. On both sides. While the Ukranian army is embraces any mercenaries or militia willing to fight, as, from their point of view, this is a return to 'The Ruin' (A period of protracted Russian interventions in the Ukraine that caused a century of civil war and anarchy in the Ukraine before the Poles and Russians finally divided the country between themselves. Following WW1 it was reunited, only to be invaded by Russia again.) the Russians play the same sort of ppolitics that Hitler played with the Sudetenland. 'You have Russians living in your territory, so we have to claim that territory to protect our fellow Russians from the violent anarchy that we just happen to be helping propagate."

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There are so much differences that you can't use WW2 or nazis to make comparisons with the current crisis in Ukraine.
Besides that, it is not the Russians, nor the separatists that walk around waving flags like this

So, in other words, *I* can't make such comparisons, only you can?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Do note that this Wolfsangel is the official symbol of the Azov batallion, a military formation of the Ukrainian government that reports directly to Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Do note that the Azov Battalion has promised to overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine once they finish with Russia. The reason they are attached to the Ministry of Internal Affairs has to do with the laws of war, particularly regarding laws on Mercenaries, rather than any actual oversight. The Ukraine is exploiting the same loophole the UK, France, and Russia do, allowing them to recruit mercenaries without committing a war crime.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/mess-obama-made-way-called-094500994.html;_ylt=AwrBJR8TbA5UuCcAs5DQtDMD

You would, considering some of the revisionist history and thinly veiled racism that it oozes. I like how he advises not to trust 'Poles and Balts'. I bet he doesn't trust 'Jews, Micks, Hunkies and Porch Monkies' either.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
For what reason could Russia possibly even want to annex the Eastern Ukraine? If they had wanted to do so, they would have followed the same strategy there as in Crimea.

Well, let's see, control of the bulk of the Ukraines gas fields, to create a land corridor to Crimea, to bypass the Ukraine pipeline and sell gas via to Europe via third parties. There are a couple right there.

Tiny gas fields that are nothing compared to the gas resources Russia already has, and that for the past decades have been chronically unable to yield any profit. The infrastructure of those gas fields has barely been maintained since the fall of the Soviet Union. To get them to turn a profit again would require huge investments.
A land corridor to Crimea? The most important thing probably, but not very important nonetheless with the bridge between Crimea and mainland Russia being built. Besides, Kaliningrad manages to do just well (very well) without any land corridor.
Bypassing Ukrainian pipelines? No need for an invasion. Pipelines bypassing Ukraine are being constructed as we speak.
I still fail to see why Russia would be interested in annexing this impoverished region. Getting the Donbass up to the average Russian level would put a huge drain on the Russian economy. Crimea alone already drains enough money as it is.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

That is not an argument, that is a logical fallacy. Just because Russia calls the Ukrainian government nazis, doesnt mean you should call the Russian government nazis as well.

Well, the mass graves aside....

No, a Reductio ad Hitlerum would require me to accuse you of having the same views as Adolf Hitler or make a comparison between something totally unrelated to Nazis. As you yourself take great pains to point out in your very next sentence, there are connections, real or assumed, between Nazism and the conflict in the Ukraine. On both sides. While the Ukranian army is embraces any mercenaries or militia willing to fight, as, from their point of view, this is a return to 'The Ruin' (A period of protracted Russian interventions in the Ukraine that caused a century of civil war and anarchy in the Ukraine before the Poles and Russians finally divided the country between themselves. Following WW1 it was reunited, only to be invaded by Russia again.) the Russians play the same sort of ppolitics that Hitler played with the Sudetenland. 'You have Russians living in your territory, so we have to claim that territory to protect our fellow Russians from the violent anarchy that we just happen to be helping propagate."

Oh yeah, right. All those mass graves that were very well evidenced and reported by impartial sources. Have you seen them? Neither have I.
And the Ruin? Surely you must mean 'Polish interventions' instead of 'Russian interventions'. Before the Ruin, the area of most of modern Ukraine (which at that point in time was not a state of any kind, but a territory divided in smaller territories that were ruled over by rival warlords) had become part of the Muscovite Tsardom in the Treaty of Pereyaslav. The Ruin was caused by the death of the warlord Bogdan Khmelnytsky, who did not leave a strong sucessor and caused the Ukrainians to fight among themselves between those who supported Poland, Russia or the Turks. The Poles, who wanted their lost lands back, were most active in meddling and prolonging this conflict. This caused the internal Ukrainian conflict to turn into a Polish-Russian war.

Now as to the reductio ad Hitlerum:

Another instance of reductio ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else...?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such action.

I hope you can see the fallacy in this. You are basically saying: Hitler once invaded another country to protect ethnic Germans, therefore everyone who invades another country to protects his people is bad. Just because Hitler once did, said or thought something does not automatically mean that said thing is bad. When you want to call something out as bad, you will need to do so without playing the Hitler card, as those cases always rest on ultimately fallacious logic.
The only exception is when there are actual (neo-)nazis involved. When people start waving about nazi symbols, you can safely assume a comparison to nazis would have some (limited) validity.
In the end, you should probably just refrain from ever mentioning nazis at all. If something is really bad, you should be able to convincingly tell others of it without having to fall back to: 'But the nazis did it too so it is really bad'.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There are so much differences that you can't use WW2 or nazis to make comparisons with the current crisis in Ukraine.
Besides that, it is not the Russians, nor the separatists that walk around waving flags like this

So, in other words, *I* can't make such comparisons, only you can?

The difference here is that the comparison is fully justified.
The following is quoted from a scientific article about the matter:

An author on the popular legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, even at-
tempted to draw lines to determine when RAH arguments are appropriate.171
The context of the discussion was a posting about “Godwin’s Law,”
a rule that proposes that as an online discussion grows longer, it becomes a near
certainty that someone will support their point by making a comparison to Nazis or Hitler.172
The blogger suggested a limited set of times when such comparisons are appropriate or useful:
1. When discussing followers and leaders of a political movement . . . explicitly
founded on Nazi principles or . . .admirers/allies of Nazism. . . .(annotation: This is the case here, as this Ukrainian organisation is founded on the principles of admirers/allies of nazism (Banderites and Galician SS) and clearly espouses their values by using their symbols.)
2. When discussing somebody who adopts the nickname “Hitler,” as well as fol-
lowers and cohorts of such a person. . . .
3. People who publish and read Mein Kampf
not as an exploration of an evil mind, but because they like its agenda. . . .
4. People who . . . deny[] that the Holocau st took place
[as a means to delegitimize the need for an Israeli homeland for Jews and to implicitly defend Nazis]. . . .
5. People who advocate for . . . dictatorships and . . . simultaneously espouse ex-
treme forms of anti-[S]emitism . . . .173
This list is a good start and could bene
fit by some broadening

Note: The scientific article in question is: REDUCTIO AD HITLERUM : TRUMPING THE JUDICIAL NAZI CARD by Gabriel H. Teninbaum *

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I hope you can see the fallacy in this. You are basically saying: Hitler once invaded another country to protect ethnic Germans, therefore everyone who invades another country to protects his people is bad.

Achem.

Hitler invaded another country 'protect his people' from a conflict he had covertly prompted, funded, and supported, then claimed he was doing so to protect his people. Vladamir Putin invaded another country 'protect his people' from a conflict he had covertly prompted, funded, and supported, then claimed he was doing so to protect his people.

Basically in your argument:

'Putin is copying Hitler's playbook in invading other countries and carving off chunks (Something I would hope most people would recognize as equally bad from both players), here are specific relevant examples to this discussion'

becomes

"Putin and Hitler both like dogs, so Putin is like Hitler!'

In a nutshell, your argument is the strawman form of reductio ad absurdum. You create a stawman that's not what I'm actually saying, and attack it with the claim the argument is a Reductio ad Hitlerum when it's no such thing.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And how do you feel about a government that so willingly collaborates with nazis?

Sadly, I could care less, because I understand that in war there's a lot of realpolitik involved and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If I were working under the assumption that a much larger army than I possessed at the current time may or may not be about to invade, I would quite willingly turn a blind eye to the fact that some of the fighters I have might be frothing lunatics. History shows most countries don't care who their allies are, only that they have them, when the gak hits the fan.

Let me turn that question around, how do you feel about Netherlands?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/34th_SS_Volunteer_Grenadier_Division_Landstorm_Nederland

After all, there's collaborators and there's collaborators, if you follow my meaning.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
For me, as long as the Ukrainian government continues to work with such vile scum and doesn't actively fight and exterminate them, they have little legitimacy in my eyes. I can't feel comfortable about a government that works with nazis and in which radical nationalists have so much influence.

Nationalism will exist as long as there are nations. Remember that there are people still alive who used to say that about working with Russians. Further, again, I know that you're gonna start squawking about Reductio ad Hitlerum again, but vilifying and advocating the extermination of a group of people who you don't agree with is something Hitler would do. I personally don't like Nazis, but I'm also not advocating that they be exterminated.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

where did you see any racism?
How is saying not to trust the Poles and Balts any less racist than saying not to trust the Russians?

Because, around here at least, it's a rude slang term for Latvians and Lithuanians (though Poles can be pretty rude too, depending on how you say it). Hence my reference to the author also not trusting 'Jews, Micks, Hunkies and Porch Monkies' (Jews, Irishmen, Hungarians, and African Americans, for those obviously not from the Eastern United States). 'Balts' you can get away with, in print, as it is, technically, the over arching name for all Baltic speaking peoples.

In specific, because the author advises them not to be trusted due to who they are. Russia should not be trusted based on what they've been doing, and the fact that they have been caught in lies, frequently over their forcing their neighbors to submit to them at gunpoint.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Well, the mass graves aside....

Russia calls for intl probe into Ukraine burials with signs of execution


Russia is calling for an international investigation into the discovery of burial sites with signs of execution at locations where the Ukraine National Guard forces were stationed two days earlier.

The head of Russia’s presidential human rights council, Mikhail Fedotov, has called on the authorities to do everything to “ensure an independent international probe” and “let international human rights activists and journalists” gain access to the site in Eastern Ukraine’s embattled Donetsk region.

The burial sites near the Kommunar mine, 60 kilometers from Donetsk, were first discovered on Tuesday by self-defense forces.
Four bodies have been exhumed, including those of three women. Their hands were tied, at least one of the bodies was decapitated, self-defense fighters said.

Two bodies were found Monday, and two others Tuesday.

Self-defense forces believe there might be other burials in the area.

"They are from Kommunar, which has just been freed [by DNR/DPR forces]. The people told me that the women had been missing and here we found four bodies. And I don’t know how many more people we might find,” a self-defense fighter, nicknamed Angel, told RT.

"The peaceful Ukrainian army came here and "liberated" them but I can’t understand what the Army freed them from. These women died horribly," his comrade, Alabai, added.

Self-defense forces said that near the mine – which was abandoned by the Ukrainian forces a few days ago – there are other burial sites which will also be examined.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Svoboda, the former 'Social-Nationalist' party of Ukraine? As long as the Ukraine allows these kind of political parties to exist, they should have zero legitimacy. Scum of the earth like this must be fought with all possible means.

Because freedom, and democracy, mean, among other things, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrongheaded, and you don't run around executing people for holding a different opinion than you. Political parties of all sorts are welcome, though most of the more extreme ones don't gain a lot of traction.

After all, suppressing all other political parties and dissenting voices by force is something Hitler would do.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Svoboda, the former 'Social-Nationalist' party of Ukraine? As long as the Ukraine allows these kind of political parties to exist, they should have zero legitimacy. Scum of the earth like this must be fought with all possible means.

Because freedom, and democracy, mean, among other things, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrongheaded, and you don't run around executing people for holding a different opinion than you. Political parties of all sorts are welcome, though most of the more extreme ones don't gain a lot of traction.

After all, suppressing all other political parties and dissenting voices by force is something Hitler would do.

You were saying ????

 loki old fart wrote:

– there are other burial sites which will also be examined.

Indeed there are. The Ukrainians have found some with more than 53 people in them after retaking areas from the separatists and Russians.

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=266741


Further, entertainingly, the Russians and Rebels are refusing to allow the UN to examine the graves in the article you mention.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/united-nations-to-probe-ukraine-mass-grave-claims/story-fnh81p7g-1227072189106

Some Russian media is claiming all the bodies were missing their internal organs. Which I find rather odd considering that the OSCE report, they did no forensic examination.


Interesting article on the mass graves:

http://khpg.org/index.php?id=1411698201

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

– there are other burial sites which will also be examined.

Indeed there are. The Ukrainians have found some with more than 53 people in them after retaking areas from the separatists and Russians.

http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=266741


Further, entertainingly, the Russians and Rebels are refusing to allow the UN to examine the graves in the article you mention.

http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/united-nations-to-probe-ukraine-mass-grave-claims/story-fnh81p7g-1227072189106

So you are comparing

Three mass grave sites found in Ukraine

Kiev, Sep 27 (IANS/EFE): Ukrainian authorities have uncovered three mass grave sites in the eastern city of Slaviansk, which had been under the control of independence-seeking pro-Russian militia, officials said.

"We located three mass graves. Bodies have been exhumed and sent to coroners for autopsy and identifying the cause of death," Andrei Lysenko, a spokesman for the National Security and Defence Council, told reporters Friday. Note bullet holes in the head would be easily seen. And Ukraine would be shouting this loudly

The spokesman added that a preliminary examination of the bodies suggests that those found in the sites might have died in the early summer months, when the city was under the separatists' control. Which may or may not be expedient burial sites due to shelling or bombing Compared to graves where people have been tied up and shot in the head.

 loki old fart wrote:
To graves where people have been tied up and shot in the head.

The actual OSCE report: http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/124216

"The ‘military police’ of ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ (‘DPR’) told the SMM that three unmarked graves allegedly containing multiple bodies had been found; two of them were located in a coal mine Komunar near the village Nyzhnia Krynka (35km north-east of Donetsk) and one inside the village. The SMM proceeded to the scene and saw in the coal mine two areas located fifty metres apart, each containing two human bodies. All four corpses were in the process of decomposition. The SMM also saw eight 9mm Makarov pistol cartridges approximately five meters away from the bodies. Near the road on the edge of the village, the SMM observed a pile of earth resembling a grave which had a stick with a plaque, written in Russian and containing the names (or in one case – initials) of five individuals. The plaque indicated that the individuals died on 27.08.2014. On top of the plaque there was another inscription saying: ‘Died for Putin’s lies’. Neither in the coal mine nor in the village did the SMM see any forensic experts. COMMENT: The SMM cannot provide a forensic assessment of the sites. "

These are the actual facts as known. I'll also point out that if the bodies were decomposing, that makes it being the handiwork of the Ukrainians unlikely. The 'three mass graves' contained two bodies each, with one 'mass' grave only actually being a 'grave'. The Ukrainians were in the area in Early August and mid September, but the marker lists the date of the executions being August 27th, when no regular Ukrainian forces were in the area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
And Ukraine would be shouting this loudly[

They have been.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/186efe6c-13e7-11e4-b46f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3EXSDgZeu

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/24/grave-mass-slovyansk.html

California would survive as a country. We'd just have to buy water from another country. Which would be paid for by agricultural and tech products.

Of course it would be a vulnerable country.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I hope you can see the fallacy in this. You are basically saying: Hitler once invaded another country to protect ethnic Germans, therefore everyone who invades another country to protects his people is bad.

Achem.

Hitler invaded another country 'protect his people' from a conflict he had covertly prompted, funded, and supported, then claimed he was doing so to protect his people. Vladamir Putin invaded another country 'protect his people' from a conflict he had covertly prompted, funded, and supported, then claimed he was doing so to protect his people.

So? Now Putin is behind this conflict? To me it seems more like the West is behind it. What would Putin gain from provoking a conflict that would oust Yanukovich? He has escalated the conflict yes, but I don't think Putin's schemes are what prompted it.

Your comparison lacks any actual value.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And how do you feel about a government that so willingly collaborates with nazis?

Sadly, I could care less, because I understand that in war there's a lot of realpolitik involved and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If I were working under the assumption that a much larger army than I possessed at the current time may or may not be about to invade, I would quite willingly turn a blind eye to the fact that some of the fighters I have might be frothing lunatics. History shows most countries don't care who their allies are, only that they have them, when the gak hits the fan.

Let me turn that question around, how do you feel about Netherlands?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/34th_SS_Volunteer_Grenadier_Division_Landstorm_Nederland

After all, there's collaborators and there's collaborators, if you follow my meaning.

You could care less? That is worrying. Nazism should be fought at every turn, lest it rears its ugly head once again. I don't think anyone wants genocides and death camps to return to Europe.
Granted, seeing as that the Ukrainian government needs all the support it can get, I understand their current course of action. After the conflict with Eastern Ukraine ends however, there will be no more excuses. The nazis will have to be dealt with.

And how I feel about the Netherlands?
Well, I guess I have a love-hate relationship with it. There is many things I love, but also many things about the Netherlands I hate.

As to nazi collaboration in the Netherlands, yes that is a serious issue. Many Dutchmen actively supported their 'German brothers'. But the Dutch did not commit any genocides of their own during the War, quite unlike the Ukrainians I might add: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia
Also, the great difference between the Netherlands and Western Ukraine is that while both areas collaborated with the Germans, in the Netherlands this episode is considered a black page in Dutch history, and those people who joined the SS, NSB or otherwise collaborated with the Germans are reviled until the present day. In Western Ukraine in the meanwhile, this collaboration and the deeds of the SS, UPA and Stepan Bandera are celebrated:

Funnily enough, the Ukrainian SS division also had Dutchmen in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_%281st_Galician%29

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
For me, as long as the Ukrainian government continues to work with such vile scum and doesn't actively fight and exterminate them, they have little legitimacy in my eyes. I can't feel comfortable about a government that works with nazis and in which radical nationalists have so much influence.

Nationalism will exist as long as there are nations. Remember that there are people still alive who used to say that about working with Russians. Further, again, I know that you're gonna start squawking about Reductio ad Hitlerum again, but vilifying and advocating the extermination of a group of people who you don't agree with is something Hitler would do. I personally don't like Nazis, but I'm also not advocating that they be exterminated.

There is nationalism and there is nationalism. There is nothing wrong with a bit of patriotism, but radical nationalism is dangerous. When the admiration for your own people reaches the level where you start considering all other peoples as inferior, that is when things can get really nasty.
Now not all veneration of the UPA and Galician SS in Western Ukraine is all that bad. Most Western Ukrainians are just proud of their own culture and consider those people to be fighters for Ukrainian freedom without approving fascist or nazist ideology. However there exists also significant groups which do not only espouse the patriotism and love of Ukrainian culture and freedom the UPA and Galician SS stand for, but also identify with the racist and fascist ideologies those organisations advocated. And while extermination was a hyperbole on my part (I did mean exterminate as in killing them all, but as in making sure their ideology disappears), actions do need to be taken against this dangerous and scary second group.

Also, indeed. Reductio ad Hitlerum. Again.
Why are you so obsessed with Hitler?
You could have made your point just as well if not better without invoking Hitler.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

where did you see any racism?
How is saying not to trust the Poles and Balts any less racist than saying not to trust the Russians?

Because, around here at least, it's a rude slang term for Latvians and Lithuanians (though Poles can be pretty rude too, depending on how you say it). Hence my reference to the author also not trusting 'Jews, Micks, Hunkies and Porch Monkies' (Jews, Irishmen, Hungarians, and African Americans, for those obviously not from the Eastern United States). 'Balts' you can get away with, in print, as it is, technically, the over arching name for all Baltic speaking peoples.

In specific, because the author advises them not to be trusted due to who they are. Russia should not be trusted based on what they've been doing, and the fact that they have been caught in lies, frequently over their forcing their neighbors to submit to them at gunpoint.

Balts is a rude slang? Afaik, it is just a normal name for the Baltic people, just as Slavs is a name for Slavic people and Germans used to be for Germanic people before the English decided to apply it only to the 'Deutsch' people because they had already wasted the English translation of Deutsch on the Dutch.
In any case, I just asked a Lithuanian and he does not consider 'Balts' to be rude or racist at all.
Now please explain to me why the author in this case advises not to trust Balts and Poles based on what they are while when it is 'the Russians' that should not be trusted it is based on what they have done.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What would Putin gain from provoking a conflict that would oust Yanukovich?

Well, apparently he had Crimea and eastern Ukraine to gain, and troops in position to take advantage of it when it happened. Stop and think for a moment, Putin pushed hard for a treaty he had to know was so unpopular that Yanukovich removal was practically assured, whether by legal or other means.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You could care less? That is worrying. Nazism should be fought at every turn, lest it rears its ugly head once again. I don't think anyone wants genocides and death camps to return to Europe.
Granted, seeing as that the Ukrainian government needs all the support it can get, I understand their current course of action. After the conflict with Eastern Ukraine ends however, there will be no more excuses. The nazis will have to be dealt with.

Communism could rear it's ugly head again too, but I don't see you demanding that the Russians round them up and put an end to them. After all, Stalin and Mao made Hitler look like an amateur when it came to genocide of one's own people.

Two things. One, I once met a real Nazi. Not one of these 'neo' Nazi skinheads, but the real deal. This man could make the room seem ten degrees colder just by looking at you. I look at modern skinheads and I see 'amateur hour'. These guys don't have what it takes to be real nazis. It's like most 'devil worshipers'. They couldn't cut a heart out in praise to the Prince of Darkness if they had step by step guide.

Two, You see the Azov Battalion as a serious threat. I see it as a bunch of meatheads that someone rounded up to use as bullet stoppers. The fact they could only come up with about 500 tells me that Nazism is not something I should worry about. If they came with five or six thousand men, then I might be concerned. I'm willing to bet, actually, that with a big enough budget, I'd have no problem putting together ten thousand recruiting in North America alone, at least some of whom would be trained military.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

As to nazi collaboration in the Netherlands, yes that is a serious issue. Many Dutchmen actively supported their 'German brothers'. But the Dutch did not commit any genocides of their own during the War, quite unlike the Ukrainians I might add:

'Of your own' is a singularly humorous statement, considering you more than made up for it in the efficiency that you exterminated your Jews on behalf of Germany. Most occupied countries came no where near the whopping 75% extermination rate that the Netherlands achieved. You even went so far as to break it down for them into full jews, half jews, and quarter jews, based on level of Jewish ancestry.


Before the invasion, the Jewish population of Netherlands looked like this:

Groningen – 4,682
Friesland – 851
Drenthe – 2,498
Overijssel – 4,345
Gelderland – 6,663
Utrecht – 4,147
North Holland – 87,026 (including 79,410 in Amsterdam)
South Holland – 25,617
Zeeland – 174
North Brabant – 2,320
Limburg – 1,394
Total – 139,717

Of these 'full Jews', 35,000 or so survived the war. Of those, 8,500 or so survived because of a loophole in Dutch law that forbade their deportation.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In Western Ukraine in the meanwhile, this collaboration and the deeds of the SS, UPA and Stepan Bandera are celebrated:

Yes, they are.

Through the nineteen thirties, upwards of 10 million Ukrainians (depending on who's counting) died at the hands of the Soviets. When faced with genocide on that level, you'd embrace the devil himself if you thought he'd stop it.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

You could care less? That is worrying. Nazism should be fought at every turn, lest it rears its ugly head once again. I don't think anyone wants genocides and death camps to return to Europe.
Granted, seeing as that the Ukrainian government needs all the support it can get, I understand their current course of action. After the conflict with Eastern Ukraine ends however, there will be no more excuses. The nazis will have to be dealt with.

Communism could rear it's ugly head again too, but I don't see you demanding that the Russians round them up and put an end to them. After all, Stalin and Mao made Hitler look like an amateur when it came to genocide of one's own people.

Two things. One, I once met a real Nazi. Not one of these 'neo' Nazi skinheads, but the real deal. This man could make the room seem ten degrees colder just by looking at you. I look at modern skinheads and I see 'amateur hour'. These guys don't have what it takes to be real nazis. It's like most 'devil worshipers'. They couldn't cut a heart out in praise to the Prince of Darkness if they had step by step guide.

Two, You see the Azov Battalion as a serious threat. I see it as a bunch of meatheads that someone rounded up to use as bullet stoppers. The fact they could only come up with about 500 tells me that Nazism is not something I should worry about. If they came with five or six thousand men, then I might be concerned. I'm willing to bet, actually, that with a big enough budget, I'd have no problem putting together ten thousand recruiting in North America alone, at least some of whom would be trained military.

Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides. The nature of Hitler's crimes far surpasses Stalin and Mao in maliciousness, despite the number of casualties. Also, unlike Stalin, Hitler was stopped in his murdering. Hadn't that been the case, the number of his victims would have likely exceeded those of Stalin and Mao combined.
Most Communists are good people who stand up for the common worker and dream of a future where there is no more rich or poor. Nazis are just racist fascists.
I see any nazi military formation as a threat to civilisation, no matter how small. They will have to be dealt with after the conflict.
Also, any true nazis still alive today must be very, very old. All nazism post WW2 is called neo-nazism.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

As to nazi collaboration in the Netherlands, yes that is a serious issue. Many Dutchmen actively supported their 'German brothers'. But the Dutch did not commit any genocides of their own during the War, quite unlike the Ukrainians I might add:

'Of your own' is a singularly humorous statement, considering you more than made up for it in the efficiency that you exterminated your Jews on behalf of Germany. Most occupied countries came no where near the whopping 75% extermination rate that the Netherlands achieved. You even went so far as to break it down for them into full jews, half jews, and quarter jews, based on level of Jewish ancestry.


Before the invasion, the Jewish population of Netherlands looked like this:

Groningen – 4,682
Friesland – 851
Drenthe – 2,498
Overijssel – 4,345
Gelderland – 6,663
Utrecht – 4,147
North Holland – 87,026 (including 79,410 in Amsterdam)
South Holland – 25,617
Zeeland – 174
North Brabant – 2,320
Limburg – 1,394
Total – 139,717

Of these 'full Jews', 35,000 or so survived the war. Of those, 8,500 or so survived because of a loophole in Dutch law that forbade their deportation.

Funny. In Dutch history books, the blame for the extremely fanatical persecution of Jews is usually put on the Austrians. Because the 'Germans' in charge of the Netherlands were actually Austrians and they wanted to prove themselves as equals, if not better, to the Germans. That is why they were so fanatical.

Regardless, the Second World War is long gone. What matters not is what happened back then, what matters is how modern people think about it. The Dutch are shameful and remorseful about it, preferring to forget entirely about their collaboration and instead focussing on their resistance.
The Ukrainians instead celebrate their dark past as an episode of Ukrainian 'freedom', conveniently forgetting how hars the nazis treated them and the fact they, as sub-humans in an area that was to be settled by Germans, were slated for extermination.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

In Western Ukraine in the meanwhile, this collaboration and the deeds of the SS, UPA and Stepan Bandera are celebrated:

Yes, they are.

Through the nineteen thirties, upwards of 10 million Ukrainians (depending on who's counting) died at the hands of the Soviets. When faced with genocide on that level, you'd embrace the devil himself if you thought he'd stop it.

No Ukrainian today was ever faced with genocide on that level. The Holodomor is beyond living memory of all but the very oldest. Besides, the Holodomor was not a genocide, ethnic Russians were killed just the same as ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor targetted a social class, not an ethnicity. That is not to mention that the perpetrators of this heinous crime, the Soviets, are no more. The Holodomor was not created by the Russians, blaming them for it is like blaming Barack Obama for the genocide of native Americans. The Holodomor was instigated by a Soviet dictator from Georgia, not even a Russian himself.
The tragedy of the Holodomor today is often sadly abused for political gains. It is telling that those who are most vocal about it, the Western Ukrainians, never even suffered from it. While those whose ancestors were most affected by it, the Eastern Ukrainians, mostly keep quiet about it and hold their commemorations without making political statements.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone.

You do realize that the distinction between Communism and Social Democracy is that the Communists wanted to make the worker's revolution happen by force, while the Social Democrats wanted to make it happen through democracy, yes?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone.

You do realize that the distinction between Communism and Social Democracy is that the Communists wanted to make the worker's revolution happen by force, while the Social Democrats wanted to make it happen through democracy, yes?

You confuse Social Democrats with Democratic Socialists here. Democratic Socialists advocate Revolution through democratic processes, while Social Democrats have abandoned the idea of Revolution altogether.
'Communists' are too diverse a group too really make generalisations about. Hardline Stalinists may espouse a violent, forceful Revolution which require the killing of all enemies of the Workin Class to ensure the Revolution's survival, but most Communists are more moderate than that. Communism advocates using force, because that is the only way the Revolution can happen. The Bourgeois aren't going to surrender their political power and ownership of the means of production just like that. Force will be necessary to convince them to do it. Force, however, does not necessarily involve killing people, and while some initial violence may be required to take power, traditional Communism does not advocate the killing of the former ruling classes, nor the purging of political opponents. Rather, it advocates true democracy and the incorporation of the old ruling classes into the Working Class.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Funny. In Dutch history books, the blame for the extremely fanatical persecution of Jews is usually put on the Austrians. Because the 'Germans' in charge of the Netherlands were actually Austrians and they wanted to prove themselves as equals, if not better, to the Germans. That is why they were so fanatical.

Regardless, the Second World War is long gone. What matters not is what happened back then, what matters is how modern people think about it. The Dutch are shameful and remorseful about it, preferring to forget entirely about their collaboration and instead focussing on their resistance.
The Ukrainians instead celebrate their dark past as an episode of Ukrainian 'freedom', conveniently forgetting how hars the nazis treated them and the fact they, as sub-humans in an area that was to be settled by Germans, were slated for extermination.

Well I had to comment something on the Netherlands. Our history in WW2 is complicated. Dutch who joined the SS were a minority of the population and not larger than those of other Western countries. After the war the Dutch goverment basicly put a death sentence on their heads or later life in prison, but West Germany protected most of them from the Dutch government. More Dutch died in Allied service than in German service.

Do you still use old books in class Iron Captain? Its been shifted a bit in recent years, we accept that we collaborated, which mostly build on the 'excellent' civil service records recording the faith of everyone born, so every city knew how big its Jewish population was. Using this civil service enabled a small group of Germans to kill that many Jews with a lot of Dutch help in deporting them across the border. Off course we forget that everyone and his mother were suddenly in the 'resistance' after the war, so we did not have to prosecute anyone for this participation. If you read the specifics about these civil servant and returning survivors from Germany it makes it even worse. The new narrative is that we accept our responsibility, but that we did not know what was going to happen, load of BS.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No Ukrainian today was ever faced with genocide on that level. The Holodomor is beyond living memory of all but the very oldest. Besides, the Holodomor was not a genocide, ethnic Russians were killed just the same as ethnic Ukrainians. The Holodomor targetted a social class, not an ethnicity. That is not to mention that the perpetrators of this heinous crime, the Soviets, are no more. The Holodomor was not created by the Russians, blaming them for it is like blaming Barack Obama for the genocide of native Americans. The Holodomor was instigated by a Soviet dictator from Georgia, not even a Russian himself.
The tragedy of the Holodomor today is often sadly abused for political gains. It is telling that those who are most vocal about it, the Western Ukrainians, never even suffered from it. While those whose ancestors were most affected by it, the Eastern Ukrainians, mostly keep quiet about it and hold their commemorations without making political statements.

The Holodomor was not meant to be a genocide, but it basicly became a genocide. Ethnic Ukrainians were the group that suffered the most because ethnic Russians in the majority lived in the cities that were not badly affected by starvation. This is what is remembered, its goal might have been to eliminate a social class but it succeeded only in killing a large amount of Ukranians. The Ukrainians remember their Nazi past in relation to the war, where it might be difficult to seperate intentional and incidental killing as part of the military situation. There is no such problem with the Soviets in peace time, of course this makes it no less disgusting, but to them it makes sense. The Holodomor was created by Russians, mainly because they became the largest group in the Soviet civil system. You could say in the same breath that the Holocaust was not the fault of Germany, because an Austrian was in charge, it wouldnt make sense as one person could never kill all these people alone, but you could say it.

Isnt the reason Russia wants Eastern Ukraine the presence of a large amount of former Soviet defence industry? A lot of currently used hardware uses parts manufactured in this part of the Ukraine.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.

Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I see any nazi military formation as a threat to civilisation, no matter how small. They will have to be dealt with after the conflict.
Also, any true nazis still alive today must be very, very old. All nazism post WW2 is called neo-nazism.

This was some time ago, and I believe the gentleman is long since dead, but yes, he would be very old by now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Ukrainians instead celebrate their dark past as an episode of Ukrainian 'freedom', conveniently forgetting how harsh the nazis treated them and the fact they, as sub-humans in an area that was to be settled by Germans, were slated for extermination.

It should tell you a lot that said harsh treatment and being slated to be killed at a later date was step UP from where they were. The Soviets did, after all, have to put up posters that read ""To eat your own children is a barbarian act."

 Iron_Captain wrote:

No Ukrainian today was ever faced with genocide on that level. The Holodomor is beyond living memory of all but the very oldest.

So's the Shoah. It doesn't mean that it's any less horrific, or has marked the people any less severely.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The tragedy of the Holodomor today is often sadly abused for political gains. It is telling that those who are most vocal about it, the Western Ukrainians, never even suffered from it. While those whose ancestors were most affected by it, the Eastern Ukrainians, mostly keep quiet about it and hold their commemorations without making political statements.

That's wrong. While Eastern Ukraine suffered the worst of it, millions died all the way up the Dnieper river valley and into Moldova.



The darker the shading, the worse the death toll.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.

Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.

I recall no such ruling.
The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Ukrainians instead celebrate their dark past as an episode of Ukrainian 'freedom', conveniently forgetting how harsh the nazis treated them and the fact they, as sub-humans in an area that was to be settled by Germans, were slated for extermination.

It should tell you a lot that said harsh treatment and being slated to be killed at a later date was step UP from where they were. The Soviets did, after all, have to put up posters that read ""To eat your own children is a barbarian act."

The Holodomor was already over when WW2 began. The death toll of Western Ukrainians under Nazi occupation will tell you it was most definitely not a step up.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

No Ukrainian today was ever faced with genocide on that level. The Holodomor is beyond living memory of all but the very oldest.

So's the Shoah. It doesn't mean that it's any less horrific, or has marked the people any less severely.

As with any great tragedy, it has a lasting influence, yes. But to claim it still marks people as severely as it did 80 years ago is simply not true.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The tragedy of the Holodomor today is often sadly abused for political gains. It is telling that those who are most vocal about it, the Western Ukrainians, never even suffered from it. While those whose ancestors were most affected by it, the Eastern Ukrainians, mostly keep quiet about it and hold their commemorations without making political statements.

That's wrong. While Eastern Ukraine suffered the worst of it, millions died all the way up the Dnieper river valley and into Moldova.



The darker the shading, the worse the death toll.

Western Ukraine still got off very light. Do note that even Russia itself is much darker than Western Ukraine. Also note that parts of Western Ukraine are not even on that map. Lviv for example was not a part of the Soviet Union at the time and did not suffer any famine.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.

Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.

I recall no such ruling.
The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.

There you have it. The Holocaust was not a genocide because a lot of people who weren't jews also died.

You do realize how silly that excuse is, yes?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Holodomor was already over when WW2 began. The death toll of Western Ukrainians under Nazi occupation will tell you it was most definitely not a step up.

It was bad enough that the census takers were sent to the Gulags as enemies of the Soviet people for reporting that the population had fallen sharply, and was not in line with Comrade Stalin's 170 million citizens. That was in 1937.

'Sure, the Germans steal our breads and shoot us, but the Russians locked us in our villages to starve to death and executed anyone who fled."
'I dunno,less than a decade is an awfully long time ago, and I'd forgotten about it in the wake of all those purges last year."

The Germans caused 4.5 million civilian casualties (mostly as a side effect of the war.). That IS a step up form the 10 million plus that the Russians caused in peace time, for no reason other than they could.. And that 4.5 million does include things like Stalingrad. Post war the Germans got the blame for things like that, but in reality it was both sides that contributed to that number.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
[
The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.

Thousands of non Jewish Germans died in the Shoah. Does that make it not genocide then?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Communism? Please stop here already for you have already made it clear your knowledge of Communism is lacking. Unlike nazism, Communism does not advocate genocide or the killing of anyone. The Communist ideology, like almost everything in the world has been abused by ruthless dictators to further their political goals and remove their opponents, yes. But the killings under Stalin and Mao were not something inherent to Communism, nor were they genocides.

Funny, the Russian courts ruled otherwise, after Stalin's death. They did determine that the Голодомор was, in fact, genocide, IIRC.

I recall no such ruling.
The official position of the Russian government is that the Holodomor was a great tragedy for which the Soviet authorities were partly responsible but which was not a genocide because millions of non-Ukrainian Soviet citizens also died.

There you have it. The Holocaust was not a genocide because a lot of people who weren't jews also died.

You do realize how silly that excuse is, yes?

Technically speaking, the Holocaust only refers to the Jewish victims of Nazi Germany.
But whatever definition you want to use, the main aim of the Holocaust was to exterminate people based on race. Political opponents were also killed, but this was not the main purpose of the nazi system of concentration and death camps. Contrast this with the Holodomor, which was neither confined to the Ukraine nor aimed at ethnic Ukrainians. It's aim was to destroy a social class, and similar famines and purges happened across the entire Soviet Union. And even then, malicious intent behind the Holodomor has never been proven. It has also been said that the Holodomor was caused by economical problems which resulted from the forced collectivisation and persecution of farmers, rather than being a pre-planned way to get rid of political enemies.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Holodomor was already over when WW2 began. The death toll of Western Ukrainians under Nazi occupation will tell you it was most definitely not a step up.

It was bad enough that the census takers were sent to the Gulags as enemies of the Soviet people for reporting that the population had fallen sharply, and was not in line with Comrade Stalin's 170 million citizens. That was in 1937.

'Sure, the Germans steal our breads and shoot us, but the Russians locked us in our villages to starve to death and executed anyone who fled."
'I dunno,less than a decade is an awfully long time ago, and I'd forgotten about it in the wake of all those purges last year."

The Germans caused 4.5 million civilian casualties (mostly as a side effect of the war.). That IS a step up form the 10 million plus that the Russians caused in peace time, for no reason other than they could.. And that 4.5 million does include things like Stalingrad. Post war the Germans got the blame for things like that, but in reality it was both sides that contributed to that number.

The Ukraine alone suffered about 7 million casualties in WW2, 16.3% of its entire population. That is a number the Soviets don't even come close to. The Soviet Union in total suffered more than 20 million casualties, majority of which were civilians. Belarus for example lost a third of its entire population. Think about it. One in three of every Belarusians died in WW2... And that is only those whose death has been recorded.

And the Russians did not cause anything, the Soviets did. Russia may be the sucessor-state to the Soviet Union, but Russian and Soviet are not the same thing. They are not the same nation, not the same country and not at all the same state.
I also have a very hard time believing the Soviets caused 10 million plus deaths in Ukraine during peace time. You can yell that all you want, but you provide no sources, so your statements lack any credibility.
Soviet archives only provide evidence for a total of 3 million people killed (during Stalin's entire reign, in the entire Soviet Union). Of course, as not everything was oficially recorded, the true number is likely to be higher. But making it as high as 10 million in Ukraine alone is beyond all reason, especially considering the total population of that time.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Technically speaking, the Holocaust only refers to the Jewish victims of Nazi Germany.

I might point out that this is also wrong, and it includes homosexuals, gypsies, and political prisoners.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But whatever definition you want to use, the main aim of the Holocaust was to exterminate people based on race. Political opponents were also killed, but this was not the main purpose of the nazi system of concentration and death camps.

The purpose of a digging machine is to excavate dirt, but when you fit it with nooses and use to hang hundreds of people, it's still mass murder. (I'm looking at you, VonBraun)



Contrast this with the Holodomor, which was neither confined to the Ukraine nor aimed at ethnic Ukrainians. It's aim was to destroy a social class, and similar famines and purges happened across the entire Soviet Union. And even then, malicious intent behind the Holodomor has never been proven.

wikipedia wrote:Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group via the (a) Killing of members of the group; (b) Causing of serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberate inflicting on the group's conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing of measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (e) Forcible transferring of children of the group to another group. Genocide entails also the Conspiracy to commit genocide; Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; Attempt to commit genocide; and Complicity in genocide.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Ukraine alone suffered about 7 million casualties in WW2, 16.3% of its entire population.

We're talking about civilian deaths, since what the Russians inflicted were 100% civilian deaths. That 7 million includes military casualties.

Kosyk gives 2.5 million military and 4.5 million civilian deaths
Kondufor gives 3,898,457 civilians and 1,366,588 military and prisoners-of-war for a total of 5,265,045. He adds another 2 million or so were killed by the Allies.
"During this war over 20 million Soviet people were killed including many peaceful citizens. On the territory of Ukraine along the Hitlerites destroyed over 5 million people and more than 2 million people were carried off into slavery" Ukrainska Radyanska Entsyklopedia, Kyiv 1978, vol. 2, p. 152.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Soviet Union in total suffered more than 20 million casualties, majority of which were civilians.

This has been hotly contested by writers both inside and outside Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. It mostly comes from Krivosheev's Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. the reason for it being contested is the surviving records don't add up by a sizable margin, never mind the unknown or unnamed dead.

Grand total Russian casualties for civilians was about 13 million, with three million of that in the form of rear area casualties that cannot be attributed to the Germans. 7 million came from combat or violence, including the sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad, typically about half a million is given as the total number of persons actually purged by the Germans as part of their program of genocide. 4 million, give or take, died of famine and disease associated with the war.

Given that 4.5 million, it's not hard to see that the Ukrainians and Belorussians did the majority of the civilian dying in WW2. And the Ukrainian part was less than half the casualties they took during peace from the Russians, just a few years before.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

And the Russians did not cause anything, the Soviets did.

And Germany did not cause anything, that crazy Austrian corporal did. Do you think the Ukrainians see them as two separate things, or the same old thing. Particularly since the government they're setting up in the Donbas is embracing the Soviet system.

you're quick ot bring up the azov battalions nazi symbolism, but let's have a look at the Donbas.




Why, it's Uncle Joe! Hmm, what's he doing here?



Looks to me like World War Two wasn't that long ago after all, based on the fact that were seeing Nazis and Stalinists clash.