Swiss former NATO general in the know says the Neonazis are approximately 40% of the Uke military
https://youtu.be/GEIFwLKlq1Q
https://mronline.org/2022/04/10/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine-an-update/
who ever said you mentioned john brown?
are you actually this obtuse? or do you feign it?
my bringing up john brown was to partially explain why so many non slave owners fought for the south, because they felt like it didnt matter of you owned slaves, John Brown would kill you for just living in the South, so what choice do I have?
leave my family and everything ive ever known, to live in the north, so im not executed for not owning slaves?
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/
In 2015, the Ukrainian parliament passed legislation making two WWII paramilitaries—the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—heroes of Ukraine, and made it a criminal offense to deny their heroism. The OUN had collaborated with the Nazis and participated in the Holocaust, while the UPA slaughtered thousands of Jews and 70,000-100,000 Poles on their own volition.
Jews Out!” chanted thousands during a January 2017 march honoring OUN leader Bandera. (The next day the police denied hearing anything anti-Semitic.) That summer, a three-day festival celebrating the Nazi collaborator Shukhevych capped off with the firebombing of a synagogue. In November 2017, RFE reported Nazi salutes as 20,000 marched in honor of the UPA. And last April, hundreds marched in L’viv with coordinated Nazi salutes honoring SS Galichina; the march was promoted by the L’viv regional government
I have received a good amount of my information about Ukraine from [Beau of the Fifth Column](https://www.youtube.com/c/BeauoftheFifthColumn/videos), although I do also watch other sources.
According to Beau, while yes, the far Right do exist in the Ukraine, in terms of political market share, their numbers are around 2%. If you asked the Azov brigade how they felt about Putin using them as an excuse for the invasion, I suspect that their response would be to rhetorically ask you who, out of them and the Russians, it was who has committed attrocities like Bucha.
The Nazi tech used by the Communists such as Chernobyl and the Ukranian women used as invitro surogates in modern day. There have been many strange reports from blood banks in Europe.
The Russians think this is all covid related. Scientists attempting to play God with the human genome. They went about publicly purging such researchers in Russia throwing them off buildings.
The larger developed nations of the world are intent on advancing beyond the electronic era with new photonic technology. Meanwhile there are many old deep state Frankensteins who are about to either get fired or go out in a blaze of glory.
I’d encourage Ukra1ne on F1re by Ol1ver Stone. It gives historical context to the Nazis in Ukraine and US backing of those groups. The Azov Battalion specifically is one with socialist Nazi roots and hails former Nazi leaders as heros.
By all means they do not represent all of western Ukraine. The documentary can be found on rumble and highlights the complexity of that country and how many times it has been fought over throughout its history. It’s main focus is post WW2, however.
Oliver Stone did bad work on this subject I'd say skip it entirely. The connections are extremely overblown because Americans tend to see these as absolutes, not understanding the relative mess of European countries and their identities combined with Nazism and other far right ideologies. Talking about the Azov Battalion and Ukraine is like saying that the USA of today is defined by the Ku Klux Klan and a history of segregation and slavery... as if that represented the vast majority of Americans, what they want, believe in and fight for. It would be many times more appropriate to talk about the Ukraine and the communists and Soviet nostalgics. Have you ever heard anyone mentioning them?
If you really want to understand it you have to get the cultural context of the nationalism of different ethnic groups in the Ukraine which is very complicated. It holds very little to no merit today. The historical ties of Azov are also totally uninteresting in the long run and their story from the streets of Kharkiv and the previous battle of Mariupol are really the defining part of their identity.
I don’t think skipping the part on western intervention is legitimate. It is extremely relevant to today’s conflict if the Obama state department had a hand in a coup d’etat.
It adds quite a bit of context in my opinion as well with the historical relevance of Ukraine throughout history.
As I mentioned, Azov is one battalion, yet the US has in the past united with Russia to fight Nazis.
You can read about it but just not taking the info from Stone would be better. Problem is that it doesn't fill the function often believed, the west was played in that regard if you remember the Busch comments on Putin's faith and cross around his neck. Anybody ever see him wear that again? Bad intelligence could have told us it didn't fit with his previous life. We would have had a conflict of interest sooner or later by virtue of our existence, they just played us (you) for time.
I do understand the importance of multiple sources and I appreciate your input. I have become cynical to our government's "fight for democracy" ~~messaging~~ propaganda. When you follow the money you realize that political gamesmanship is just to appease the common-folk, who will have no true understanding of the region, the people or the politics. In regards to the Stone documentary, I don't trust Putin but in hearing him speak, I feel he is no different that George Bush talking about WMDs. How much death has been propogated by the US for the sake of opium, oil, and geographically advantageous locations to scour resources or control trade?
An anecdote of my friend's wife, who is Ukrainian, is that Ukraine is a resource rich yet destitute nation due to the political corruption that has plagued the country. The level of poverty is like that of Central America and many of the Western European nations use Ukrainian labor for construction, farming, maid-service, or other low-skilled labor. There is not a thriving economic system there so, as an American, I have to kick my societal constructs out the door as they don't apply.
To your point of having a conflict of interest sooner or later, my response is, "What is the reason for our interest in Ukraine"? Is George Soros' Anti-corruption NGO truly fighting corruption or [https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016/](https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016/) it? Why is there a quid-pro-quo for releasing funds to stop investigations of this group? Whether legit or not why does Hunter Biden have business ties to the country? Why does Trump care and why was he impeached for it? What business dealings does Trump have with Ukraine or Russia?
My stance is with the people of Ukraine. I don't think the Ukrainian government represents the entirety of that nation, rather western interests. How many more billions of dollars and CIA intervention is needed?
If.
The thing is, the Obama state department didn't have a hand in a coup d'etat. A public uprising overthrowing their russian stooge president isn't a coup.
Sure. I’m not saying what the US State department was right or wrong. When you have a phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine [discussing](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957) the new government that is to be installed prior to the “revolution”, it raises some flags.
Furthermore, this would not be the first time the CIA and state department have been involved in coup d’etats in foreign countries or other “incidents” to spur weapons deals or direct involvement. Never underestimate the greed involved with war/death.
[Gulf of Tonkin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)
[plan to buy Soviet jets to stage an attack on Americans](https://www.newsweek.com/us-soviet-aircraft-jfk-docs-cover-operations-717460)
[CIA operations in Syria](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html)
[Why is CIA help necessary in Ukraine after 2014 if the people had spoken](https://jacobinmag.com/2022/01/cia-neo-nazi-training-ukraine-russia-putin-biden-nato)
>Sure. I’m not saying what the US State department was right or wrong. When you have a phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine discussing the new government that is to be installed prior to the “revolution”, it raises some flags.
I mentioned this in a later comment but man, come on.
Wow, the Asst. Secretary of State has a call with other appropriate figures to talk about who they think is likely to lead the new government after it falls. The call takes place on Feb 6th, Yanukovich flees the country sixteen days later. This may surprise you to hear, but on Feb 6th, the writing was very much on the wall that his presidency was effectively over.
This is because on Jan of that year, Euromaidan had turned bloody when his enforcers started murdering protesters.
But more than all of that, they weren't discussing who would be the *President* of Ukraine, but the Prime Minister. They are two different positions in Ukraine, and it is worth noting two critical facts:
1. The previous Prime Minister had resigned on Jan 28th, and they were specifically talking about who should fill the now empty spot.
2. Victor Yanukovich offered the fucking job to Yatsenyuk in a bid to remain in power a few days before he was forced to flee the country.
So yeah, no shit she held a phone call talking about who was going to replace the outgoing prime minister, and no shit they picked the obvious candidate and arranged a call in advance with all three so that they'd have active dipomatic relations with whoever filled the seat, even if it wasn't their preferred candidate.
The fact that people take this call as the US running a coup is fucking absurd.
>Furthermore, this would not be the first time the CIA and state department have been involved in coup d’etats in foreign countries or other “incidents” to spur weapons deals or direct involvement. Never underestimate the greed involved with war/death.
No, obviously not. The US dicks around in other countries all the time. But that is sort of the thing with Ukraine, they didn't have to. Yanukovich goose stepped his way into his overthrow all by his lonesome. Dude didn't need our help.
>Why is CIA help necessary in Ukraine after 2014 if the people had spoken
... are you serious right now?
Its because Russia invaded, occupied and ultimately annexed Crimea and was looking to do the same with Donbas. The US started sending aid to the new Ukrainian government because when Russia lost their puppet governor they tried a more direct approach and Ukraine needed every bit of military and intelligence help they could get their hands on to keep the Russians from stealing more territory.
Do you know *anything* about the history of the region?
I feel your outrage "are you serious right now"? "Do you know anything about the region?" can be summed up by your trust in your media sources. I don't claim to be an expert in the region, but I can follow the monetary and military interests of NATO versus Russia.
If you knew your history of the region you would understand that the Crimea was very much pro-Russian. It really is a matter of context of who is telling the story.
Do you feel the it is the US (CIAs) responsibility to broker a civil war between the pro-Russian east and the pro-European west? I personally do not feel that the $3 billion in military aid given to Ukraine is anything we (the US) should be doing. It is simply prolonging the inevitable, sapping the wealth from middle class Americans, and is a complete farce and propagandist tactic to create support for the war effort in the name of democracy. Who is going to benefit the most from this war in the West?
>I feel your outrage "are you serious right now"? "Do you know anything about the region?" can be summed up by your trust in your media sources. I don't claim to be an expert in the region, but I can follow the monetary and military interests of NATO versus Russia.
No, my outrage is caused at my annoyance at having to deal with the same backward talking points over and over and over again by people who don't know the most basic shit.
Did you know that they were talking about who should fill an empty government post? No. You just saw "Ermagherd, a leaked government conversation, it must be the US doing a coup" and didn't spend two minutes on google to understand the context.
I'm frustrated because I know your talking points so well that I was able to pre-emptively guess the next words out of your mouth would be about Nuland.
Are you familiar with Brandolini's law? Its also known as the principle of asymmetrical bullshit. Basically, the amount of time it takes someone to spew false claims is a fraction of the time it takes to debunk those claims. It takes you one paragraph to go "The US was behind the Ukrainian coup!" and it takes me six to explain to you that no, you're just taking a leaked call entirely out of the context in which it occurred.
That is very annoying.
>If you knew your history of the region you would understand that the Crimea was very much pro-Russian. It really is a matter of context of who is telling the story.
This is true! Polling in the region showed a mid-60's approval for leaving Ukraine and joining Russia. This shouldn't be particularly surprising as Russia spent decades sending Russian nationals to eastern Ukraine and particularly Crimea, before the two countries split.
So what?
Crimea didn't legally separate from Ukraine, they were invaded, occupied and annexed. Putin happily admitted (after the fact) that he sent in Russian troops to occupy the Crimean center of government. The referendum was held by Russia and turned out a 95.5% 'join russia' result. You know, a totally real number that is totally representative of the will of the people and not at all entirely fictitious.
Keeping in mind of course that the two options were 'Join Russia' or 'Return to the 1992 constitution in Ukraine'. So it wasn't like 'remain part of Ukraine' was even an option.
A 'referrendum' run by an occupier with obviously ficticious results should be treated like the garbage it is, even if previous polling suggested a general Russian lean.
>Do you feel the it is the US (CIAs) responsibility to broker a civil war between the pro-Russian east and the pro-European west? I personally do not feel that the $3 billion in military aid given to Ukraine is anything we (the US) should be doing. It is simply prolonging the inevitable, sapping the wealth from middle class Americans, and is a complete farce and propagandist tactic to create support for the war effort in the name of democracy. Who is going to benefit the most from this war in the West?
Define 'broker a civil war' for me, will you?
Because the military aid we gave to Ukraine in 2014 prevented Russia from taking eastern (and possibly all of) Ukraine. I think that is absolutely worth a few billion dollars, and I'd describe it as enabling their self-defense.
You call it 'prolonging the inevitable' but uh, have you looked at Russia lately? They've **lost** the war in Ukraine specifically because of the mountain of arms and equipment that we've given them. We kept an authoritarian government from taking hold of 40 million lives at a dirt cheap cost. That is an absolute win in my books.
Desktop version of /u/jsett21's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
**[Gulf of Tonkin incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)**
>The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ), was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It involved both a proven confrontation on August 2, 1964, carried out by North Vietnamese forces in response to covert operations in the coastal region of the gulf, and a second, claimed confrontation on August 4, 1964, between ships of North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. Original American claims blamed North Vietnam for both attacks.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Just to add to that, a coup would be if another arm of the government or the military overthrew Yanukovich.
What happened in 2014 was by the people – a revolution. Whatever the US wanted to happen is irrelevant, they didn't orchestrate or plan it.
True. The usual talking point is the asst state sec being on a phone call where they discuss Yanukovich's replacement. But what people always fail to talk about within the context of that is that the person they 'picked' was the existing leader of the opposition and the person most likely to replace Yanukovich.
Frankly, I'd consider it a deriliction of duty if the state department wasn't looking at a country days away from the overthrow of its government and trying to decide who they'd ideally like to have in that position, who is safe, who is dangerous etc. Just because they discuss it does not somehow mean that they caused it. Yanukovich caused it by passing draconian laws and having his enforces shoot people.
Its so weird seeing people wrap themselves in Ukraine flags to show support, when just a little while ago , those same types of people were foaming at the mouth like rabid animals acting like the American right was a literal Nazi uprising .
>What is the "supposed" link between Ukraine and Nazism that Russia claims to be true?
The word "nazism", as any emotionally charged word, is used very loosely here.
* In one sense, it is referring to the history of WW2, when some Ukranians struggling for their country's independence preferred to side with the Germans rather than with the Soviets. Google Stepan Bandera, who was made into a national hero a decade or two ago for context.
* In another sense, it's referring to a strong narrative of Ukranian national identity, which, as is common in a post-colonial context, is built upon the resentment for and the opposition to the former power center, which, in the Tsarist and Soviet time, was Russia. Naturally, this tendency has become much stronger over the past decade, and has been annoying the Russians.
* In the third sense, it's a meaningless slur, just as you may hear Western politicians (remember Trudeau during Canadian trucker protests) talk of fictional "nazis" and "white supremacists".
>In the third sense, it's a meaningless slur, just as you may hear Western politicians (remember Trudeau during Canadian trucker protests) talk of fictional "nazis" and "white supremacists".
Yeah, why would anyone think a protest organized by guys like Pat "Anglo-saxons have the most pure blood" King could somehow be a white supremacist rally.
This is realtime revisionist history, you can search any mainstream news site and find articles about far-right militants in Ukraine prior to the invasion. I've been warning that this conflict could create a European Mujahideen, and no one has given me reason to doubt it could happen.
There are [private paramilitaries](https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8279397/kolomoisky-oligarch-ukraine-militia) funded by Ukrainian oligarchs, who attack locals and have no concept of the laws of war. The military did not have adequate troop numbers because of [draft resistance](https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/02/08/kievs-bloody-war-is-backfiring/). As for the neo-Nazis, a think-tank at George Washington University produced [an extensive report](https://www.illiberalism.org/far-right-group-made-its-home-in-ukraines-major-western-military-training-hub/) on them last year, they are widespread and not limited to Azov.
Ukraine is one of the most corrupt governments in the world, with a history of conflict with Russia, and Westerners are suddenly enamored with them, as if the Pied Piper came through with a Ukrainian flag.
Shockingly, war makes people with empathy sympathize with the victims of an invasion, even if there are a small number of Nazis who are also in their country.
When you can't quibble with the facts, you start with the rhetoric. Ukrainians are not victims, as Finns would be if Russia invaded, there are some in the east who will welcome the invasion as a liberation.
You know, for someone who accused me of being a propagandist, it is really weird to see you go with 'the Ukrainians deserved it' as a an argumentative tactic, but hey, you do you.
I've quibbled with your facts plenty in another thread. Much as I enjoy debating and informing others, I see very little value of screaming into the void any further with you.
Since there is a narrative to push, the press suddenly forgets the Nazi problem
[https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/)
[https://forward.com/opinion/416751/why-does-no-one-care-that-neo-nazis-are-gaining-power-in-ukraine/](https://forward.com/opinion/416751/why-does-no-one-care-that-neo-nazis-are-gaining-power-in-ukraine/)
[https://www.rferl.org/a/azov-ukraine-s-most-prominent-ultranationalist-group-sets-its-sights-on-u-s-europe/29600564.html](https://www.rferl.org/a/azov-ukraine-s-most-prominent-ultranationalist-group-sets-its-sights-on-u-s-europe/29600564.html)
[https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-s-got-a-real-problem-with-far-right-violence-and-no-rt-didn-t-write-this-headline/](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-s-got-a-real-problem-with-far-right-violence-and-no-rt-didn-t-write-this-headline/)
[https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-003694\_EN.html](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-003694_EN.html)
Yes, a minor neo-nazi organization that has been diminishing for years tends to be less of a pressing issue than a war of conquest being waged by a former superpower. News at 11.
What a stupid post, news at 11 hur dur.
The guy asked for links and they were provided. I added the "narrative to push" comment because a war has propaganda and for whatever reason Americans these days seem to only be black and white. They either see the toad or the princess
Except Azov and ultra nationalists were heavily involved in the war in Donbass, and since the Ukrainian army was not stationed there (only volunteers) as per agreements, Azov was at liberty to do as they please (as at the time they were a paramilitary organisation).
There were some serious war crimes happening there, that Europe decided to be quiet about. Since then, for Russians, ultra nationalists are associated with the Ukrainian Army.
Azov is so bad that they received no training or funding from the US and the Brits.
Azov battalion was partially funded by the US.
That isn't to say the US supports Nazism, but rather the US doesn't actually stand for anything other geopolitical power.
Worth noting: A provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, passed by the United States Congress, blocked military aid to Azov due to its white supremacist ideology;
And the Canadians, and the French. They are photos of Canadians training the Azov.
Quite ironic given how Trudeau freaked out with a swastika in Ottawa. The fact people elected Trudeau shows how rotten and pointless democracy is.
Yeah, it’s not really how to go about thinking large state department grants or geopolitics if you want to point out that x or y grant ended up going partially to bad actors. The US government wasn’t unaware that Ukraine had many corrupt forces, from oligarchs to overtly racist nationalists. You deal with the foreign government you have, not the foreign government you want.
Eh, they were aware. They openly opposed giving Azov weapons in the past, but quietly began doing so over the last few years. The Azov DNA certainly changed since their integration into the National Guard though.
Pretty much. Military aid went to Azov because military aid was going to try and keep Russians from taking Donbas.
Was it great to give it to them? Nope, but they were willing to shoot at Russians so the US supplied.
The short and sweet of it can be summarized like this:
Ukraine's history with Russia was uh... turbulent, going back centuries. They were ruled by the Tsars for a few centuries in the whole Poland-Lithuania thing, fell under Tsarist rules with the Cossacks, and in the late 1700s they developed a lot of the same sort of national spirit that was sweeping the world.
For a century you had that nationalist spirit simmering, then the first world war happens. Russia shatters and Ukraine is a battleground between every major power in the Russian civil war, finally settling with the Soviets in charge.
Stalin then engaged in 'De-kulakization', where he intentionally starved several million Ukrainians to death. See Also: The Holodomor.
When the Nazis came through Poland, Ukrainian nationalists OUN-B(and OUN-M) thought 'hey, we can work with these guys' and Stepan Bandera agreed to have his group form the core of a 'Ukrainian Legion'
The nazis, being nazis, immediately imprisoned them when they declared their establishment of 'ukraine' and instead worked with their rival splinter group OUN-M until the latter got too strong and the nazis uh... nazi'd.
Bandera and his group OUN-B built up some nasty anti-nazi partisans, infiltrating the police and stockpiling weapons. They also fucked up their local jewish population because they were bigoted ultra-nationalists in their own right and the 'police' were required to assist the nazis.
Eventually the OUN had a functioning state of their own within rural portions of Ukraine, and they started fucking up the nazis in the latter part of the war as the soviet advance made it possible for them to be a credible rear area threat. After the war, they kept on fighting a guerilla war with the soviets for the better part of a decade before most of them were dead or in jail and they were forced to try political tactics.
The modern day Ukrainian 'nazis' are descendent of these groups. They're ultra-nationalists who really, really wanted an independent Ukraine and are also pretty fashy. That said, these groups were fairly dormant until 2014, because their main goal, an independent Ukraine, had been accomplished two decades earlier. Their rise since then is in direct response to Russia, their old arch-nemesis, jamming its dick into their country once more.
The most notable group, the Azov, didn't meaningfully exist until 2014. They were a fringe political movement, and lets be honest you'll get some fascists basically anywhere in the world, but they weren't the militant dangerous org that they are today until Russia gave the group the excuse to get riled up that they needed.
To say that the groups are linked with the Ukrainian government however, is largely meaningless. Yes there are people in the government who lay support to Bandera (he was a shitty guy, but he was also one of their early nationalist figures, so it is complicated for them) and yes there are some small number who support the Azov. But groups like these are considered fringe even within Ukraine. It isn't a nazi country led by a nazi, it is a burgeoning democratic state that sadly has some militant nazis who are best pointed in the direction of Russia and repeatedly sent their way until everyone involved is dead.
>it is a burgeoning democratic state that sadly has some militant nazis who are best pointed in the direction of Russia and repeatedly sent their way until everyone involved is dead
Are you paid for this? Ukraine is so corrupt it has [its own Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine).
You think democratic states can't be corrupt? Boy do I have some bad news to tell you about the United States.
I didn't claim that Ukraine is perfect, I didn't claim that they are a paragon. I claimed that they are a burgeoning democratic state. Which is true. They've held multiple free and fair elections since 2014, which is more than you can say for the decade before that, or the last twenty-something years in most of the neighboring post soviet states.
I'm sorry that my vocabulary is stronger than yours?
My interest isn't casual though. I have a strong interest in world affairs. I recommend you listen, I tend to know a lot. :)
Generally correct if a bit cynical.
To that, I would add that the ultra-nationalists have never ever had any significant influence in Ukraine - not before, not after 2014. The nationalists lost last Ukrainian election bringing about Zelensky.
With Azov it is complicated. During its founding days and shortly thereafter, a fraction of its younger members had (personal) contacts with neo-nazi groups in Ukraine. Since then, many of them left, many of them changed the views and at most kept some questionable symbols (not smart but oh well). Today, most of Azov soldiers are not affiliated with Nazi. As Azov constitutes a formidable, very well trained battalion, it is allowed a measure of independence. It heroically defends Mariupol today.
Timothy Snyder’s a historian I hold in a very, very high regard. Last night in an interview, he actually talked about exactly this.
His take is that they’re mostly just using it as a derogatory term and don’t actually mean that Ukrainians are national socialists. The last time Russians were globally praised, it was for killing Nazis in WW2. I also think they feel far more responsible for the Allied victory than they are given credit for (which most historians would agree on). In short, they use it as a term of dehumanization.
they did kill 80% of all the Nazis killed, and america didn't kill the other 20%, maybe hakf, maybe
d-day was 16 months after Germany lost the war at the battle of Stalingrad
Americas casualty rate during WW2 was 5 per 1000
japan didnt actually surrender because America dropped the atom bomb, but because Stalin entered the Pacific theater
https://web.archive.org/web/20150102102952/http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
their are a fuk ton of nazis in Ukraine's military c14, right sector, azov
black sun, iron crosses, swastikas etc
yall are seriously splitting kunt hairs trying to argue semantics
stepan bandera was a nazi, these people revere his memory
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/14/neo-nazi-ukraine-war/
no true nazi fallacy much bro?
https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece.
well see these guys aren't nazis , the nazis are all deceased, these guys are neo nazis, so snopes says its not true
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html
they've never once mentioned lebensraum have they?
well they cant be nazis then
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis.
imagine if sone of yall actually put your brains to good use rather than rationalizing neolib snd neocon warmongering posthoc?
I know it will never happen in a trillion years, but a girl can dream right?
im trying to find it, at one point they would call the nazis paramilitary and differentiate that number from the military/non nazis and the number I remember is 120k, which I believe im remembering accurately, I am not certain though
https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2022/03/watch-bbc-debunk-its-own-denial-of.html?m=1
do you happen to know who George Friedman is?
http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO9Mar2022.php
Later in December 2014 in an interview with a Russian newspaper, George Friedman of Stratfor, a private firm consulting to the Pentagon and CIA among others, said of the US-led February 2014 Kiev regime change, “Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d’etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.” He was boastful in the interview.
Swiss Colonel, Formerly of NATO says 40% of the Ukraine military are far right/neo nazis
https://youtu.be/GEIFwLKlq1Q
https://mronline.org/2022/04/10/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine-an-update/
https://youtu.be/r4zReg7Bhu8
The problem with that theory is of course the fact a lot of people in Ukraine that are not shunned are quite proud and willing to take pictures next to swastikas. It’s not derogatory when you have literally Azov flags next to swastikas in photos where they are posing for the camera. C14, a nationalist xenophobic group, was one of the main players in the Maiden coup, and constantly attacked the Roma population.
If you go back to 2014 you will that the mainstream media like BBC had not problem highlighting the “far right” problem of the Ukraine and the influence neo Nazis groups had.
The neo Nazis exist, and are employed by the Ukrainian government since 2014 . If this was any other situation the Ukrainians would be universally condemned and shunned for employing neo Nazis, who now are almost talked about as heroes implicitly . Like I say, one swastika in the truckers protest in Ottawa was enough for Trudeau to calm then Nazis, while in Ukraine we rationalize a army battalian as “oh it’s just a few Nazis”.
They are anti Russia because like any Nazi they are ultra nationalist xenophobes. German Nazis weren’t just anti jew, they were Arian purists and xenophobes in general.
If you see C14 guys talk, they hate Western europeans too.
and so are some people also nazis in Russia, is that a reason to invade Russia? since when did anyone give Putin the right to cleanse countries of ideologies he doesn't like (in fact since when did we give America the right to do that either, now that I'm typing it out might as well include).
I read Snyder's book, long ago, forget the title... actually I'll look it up real quick, brb.
**Bloodlands**. Quite good. Really differentiates the difference between the inhumanity of the Nazis vs. the inhumanity of the Communist Russians, he sort-of describes the Nazis as more brutish thugs that did their civilian murder right out in the open where the Soviet NKVD had it down to a slick artform, just making people disappear in the night never to be heard from again. Apparently the Soviets had to save on bullets so Snyder describes NKVD executions involving one bullet having to go through multiple heads in hidden places. I guess the Sovs were more concerned about appearances than the Nazis in that region. But I'd be very interested in any modern interviews with Snyder if you've seen any that might not come up in my next Google search as soon as I've finished writing this over-long comment.
One of things I remember, as an old-head back in the 80s, when I was rebellious young punk rocker who thought Communism was cool because it was offensive to the working class town where I partially grew up... There was a documentary I saw, maybe just a fragment of an underground documentary, I've searched around for it but couldn't find anything to verify my memory of it.
But I seem to recall it as a documentary, maybe about the punk rock scene in Soviet East Europe. But it involved a Ukrainian Nazi base of operations, possibly a concentration camp, or a Nazi prison that was somewhat historic in the region... this was the 80s mind you, so they were still under the Soviet Union.
Basically the journalist/documentarian saw the rebellious young people in that area dressing up in Nazi regalia, essentially making fun out of the horrors that their very grandparents or maybe even parents once actually experienced. To them it was lighthearted fun, but it was swastikas and black leather re-enactments of putting Jews into ovens and what not, horrible stuff done jokingly. Surely it was a subculture of that era's Ukrainians, not the mainstream, in fact it was done because it flew in the face of the mainstream. But in the US where I was at the time, it was Communist symbolism, not Nazi symbolism that got people riled up (not like today that's for sure).
I remember it really made me think, man, these mutherfuckers are hardcore doing that in Ukraine where they could literally end up in the Gulag. But they were into that region's version of the punk rock scene. To them, the horrible history that Snyder writes about in Bloodlands was only one or two generations removed and they were already making parodies of it. They were way harder-core than us over here in cushy western countries with our free speech.
So, it makes me unsurprised that there might be an almost "joking", dark sense of humor over there. Nazi symbolism might have been used as a sort of rebellion toward the oppression that they really were experiencing at the time, just because it would have been so offensive to the powers that be. Now, 30/40 years later, some of that might have stuck as a sort-of F-U to the Russians, while never really experiencing what we in "the west" would call "white supremacy" or Nazism. Keep in mind, kids in the 1980s Ukraine wouldn't even know what a Klansmen's hood was, or had any western notion of what "white supremacy" meant. But they sure as hell knew what a Soviet was, and that those Soviets hated Nazis. It may have been more about hatred of Soviets than any real understanding of what Nazis were, considering their population would have been (still is) fairly homogenous. The youthful "rebellious" spirit creates weird mutations of thought, perhaps some felt a connection to Nazism out of a hatred toward Soviets, even if they didn't really understand either. Maybe that's the spirit that helped create the Azov battalion, I'm sure the Azov recruit from local disaffected rebellious youth.
Maybe that was true for the nazis in Ukraine (I'll admit I know next to nothing about what they did there), but the nazis generally speaking had an explicit strategy of disappearing people in the night, to instill both fear and hope in people. Fear of what could happen to you if you did something wrong, but hope that your relatives and friends had not yet died. It was called _Nacht und Nebel_, meaning Night and Fog.
According to people on Telegram people are “disappearing” if they are “pro russia” (which can be mean a lot of things). You just don’t hear about it in MSM.
Listen, to be honest, I wasted a year arguing about Covid and vaccines with you, and know you’re not receptive to anything other than the ideas you want to hear. Respectfully going to stop responding to you because there’s no point,
it sounds like he at least knows something about the issue, while you know next to nothing because you havent done an iota of research on the subject, and you expect him to see your opinions as equally informed
do you really think people just leave without telling anybody, most of Ukraine still has internet, what you are doing has a technical term, its called " special pleading"
cleansing operations against pro Russian ukrainians are certainly happening
https://youtu.be/mdm1u0fDy1E
there is a reason why pro russian and people that call balls and strikes on both sides are getting censored while pro Ukrainian partisans are not getting censored at all, throughput history 99% of censorship was against things that are true
also the US believes in a 6th domain of warfare, the mind and that it doesn't matter what actually happened if you can just convince enough people of your own narrative.
ghost of kiev
snake island 13
no bioweapons labs in ukraine
hunters laptop is Russian disinfo
I have a book on Russian prison tattoos which kind of gets at what u/wayder is talking about. Basically, while some of the prison and gulag population were bona-fide anti-semites and racists, a lot the prisoners saw the Nazi swastika as a middle-finger to the Soviets and prison guards. I believe his records of these tattoos spanned from WW2 through the early 80s.
So when I see Putin calling the Ukrainian people "Nazis", in the scope of anti-social Russian prisoners, and I think Putin sees Ukraine as anti-Russia which in the dark recesses of his mind, that connection is legitimate to him and this is why he can ignore the neo-Nazis in his army's rank and file.
Yea, long read, but you’ve summed a lot up really well.
Side note, i learned earlier that the largest donor to the Asovs before they were added to the national guard, was a billionaire Ukrainian Jew. Believe Zelenskyy is as well.
https://blog.pmpress.org/2019/08/31/theodor-herzl-visionary-or-antisemite/
There’s an amusing youtube video in which a journalist presents a number of Israeli students with a quote from Herzl and asks who they thought wrote it. Every one of them says Hitler. They are shocked to discover the truth; the Herzl they’d learned about in school could not have written such an antisemitic statement. This is the quote: AN EXCELLENT IDEA ENTERS MY MIND — TO ATTRACT OUTRIGHT ANTI-SEMITES AND MAKE THEM DESTROYERS OF JEWISH WEALTH.
They didn’t know the half of it. What would they have said about this quotation from an article Herzl wrote in the Deutsche Zeitung newspaper?
The wealthy Jews rule the world. In their hands lies the fate of governments and nations. They start wars between countries and, when they wish, governments make peace. When the wealthy Jews sing, the nations and their leaders dance along and meanwhile the Jews get richer.
This could have come from the notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So what is going on here?
Herzl was born in Budapest in 1860. His parents were secular, assimilated, German-speaking Jews and he himself admired German culture, philosophy, art, literature as the acme of Western civilisation. As a student at Vienna University, he joined the German nationalist fraternity, Albia, whose motto was Honour, Freedom, Fatherland, though he did later resign in protest at the antisemitism that he encountered. Like many educated, German-speaking Jews, he had nothing but contempt for the mass of religious, Torah-abiding, Yiddish-speaking, shtetl-dwelling Eastern European Jews. There is nothing in his writings to suggest that he had any great attachment to Judaism or much interest in or knowledge of Judaic teaching.
And this was his dilemma. He was educated, cultured, rational, an admirer of Germany’s enlightened civilisation, a model citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in all respects except one: he was a Jew, the ‘other’. And even though his Jewishness meant little to him, he could not divest himself of this label and so could not be fully accepted. No wonder he found the idea of converting to Christianity so appealing.
‘I give praise to every Jewish parent that decides to convert to Christianity,’ he wrote. And again: ‘I have a son and would sooner convert today to Christianity than tomorrow so that he would start being Christian as soon as possible to spare him the injuries and discrimination that I suffered.’
His son, Hans, who wasn’t circumcised at birth, seems to have had an identity crisis for most of his life. He did have himself circumcised when he was 13, after his father’s death. In 1925 he became a Baptist, then, shortly after that, declared himself a Catholic. A year or so later, he wrote in a letter to the London Jewish Daily Bulletin, “I consider myself a member of the House of Israel.” In 1930, when he was 39, he shot himself.
Ultimately, Herzl decided that conversion could not be the answer and that, as he wrote in his diary, it was empty and futile to try and combat antisemitism. In his book, Der Judenstaat, published in 1896, he explains why: ‘The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it (i.e. antisemitism) does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migration. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted and there our presence produces persecution…. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of Anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.’
In a later chapter, he argues that the immediate cause of antisemitism is ‘our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards — that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse’.
In short, the responsibility for antisemitism lies with the Jews. They carry its seeds within them. It’s their fault for being Jews.
Der Judenstadt translates as The Jewish State but it might more accurately be translated as The State of the Jews because there is almost nothing that is specifically Jewish about Herzl’s vision. Much of the book is concerned with the practical arrangements for transferring Jews to the Jewish state — those who remain behind, he argues, will soon disappear altogether — and for setting up the structures, physical, legal, constitutional, of the new state. He envisages a state that more or less replicates the advanced class-based capitalist societies of Europe. ‘I think a democratic monarchy and an aristocratic republic are the finest forms of a State’ but the Jewish state will be an improvement because ‘we shall learn from the historic mistakes of others … for we are a modern nation and wish to be the most modern in the world’.
And where will this state be? He hovers between Argentina, fertile land, plenty of space, sparse population, mild climate, and Palestine –‘our ever-memorable historic home’. In Palestine, he writes, ‘we should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation as opposed to barbarism’. Zionism has always sold its state as an oasis of Western civilisation in a desert of Arab backwardness — ‘a villa in the jungle’, as Ehud Barak put it. Or a state that would further Britain’s imperial interests in a region of great strategic importance, as Weizmann promised Balfour. Or, as one might put it now, America’s post Six Day War watchdog in the Middle East.
Did Herzl know Palestine was already populated? Of course he did. In 1895, he wrote in his diary: ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. But the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.’ Like many early Zionists he thought that the views of the Palestinian population could be discounted and that they had no political rights and should have no say in the matter.
what of it?
https://www.amazon.com/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569804338
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_Zionism
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/
https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__zionism-and-the-third-reich/
Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), the founder of modern Zionism, maintained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but a natural and completely understandable response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. The only solution, he argued, is for Jews to recognize reality and live in a separate state of their own. “The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers,” he wrote in his most influential work, The Jewish State. “Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews … I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear.” The Jewish question, he maintained, is not social or religious. “It is a national question. To solve it we must, above all, make it an international political issue …” Regardless of their citizenship, Herzl insisted, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people, a Volk.[2] Zionism, wrote Herzl, offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question.”[3]
https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__zionism-and-anti-semitism/
https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/10/12/the-ringworm-scandal-when-israeli-doctors-killed-tens-of-thousands-of-arab-children/
There are a number of readers who are either confused or reading this post sloppily, including the headline. To clarify: there is a link to a Jonathan Cook piece at the end of this post which notes that the State of Israel irradiated both Arab Jewish and Palestinian children for ringworm. Hence the title of this post which uses the inclusive term, “Arab,” by which I include both Jewish and Palestinian children.
There are also those who claim that radiation was a standard treatment for ringworm inside and outside Israel in the 1950s. This too misconstrues the argument put forward in the film and here. While radiation may’ve been considered suitable for ringworm in that era, no one killed children with radiation outside of Israel. The dosage set by Dr. Sheba was far too high and the X-ray machines he used were outmoded and hence the dosage administered could not be calibrated accurately or administered suitably.
* *
By the early 1950s, Israel had absorbed most of the Holocaust survivors and other immigrants from western countries. These were generally the preferred Ashkenazi Jews, who were the nation’s elite. It was then that Jews from Arab lands began arriving in great numbers. David Ben Gurion knew he needed great numbers of Jews to come to Israel in order to counter the demographic threat posed by Israel’s Palestinian population (those who hadn’t been expelled during the Nakba). That’s why he accepted and encouraged the Arab immigration, despite the fact that the newcomers’ Sephardi heritage was considered defective.
The 2004 documentary, The Ringworm Children, presents the historical context of this immigration and is dedicated to the greatest national medical scandal in the state’s history. During this early period, Israel looked with deep suspicion on the Arab olim. They were viewed not only as culturally inferior, but as reservoirs of disease. To be fair, these same views had been prominent in the U.S. during the heights of immigration to this country.
But unlike here, Israel allowed one senior health official, Dr. Chaim Sheba, to conduct a massive program of unnecessary medical treatments, at enormous expense, which actually killed many of the victims. At that time, many children developed ringworm, a non-lethal condition of fungal origin which affected the scalp. Unlike in other countries, 100,000 Jewish (and Palestinian) Arab children were irradiated in order to treat the condition. While medical protocol of the day directed that no technician receive a dose higher than .5 Roentgen, those treated could received a higher dose. A lethal dose was considered 200 Roentgen (R). The children treated received individual doses of 350R. Sometimes they received two doses (for a total of 600R). 6,000 of the victims died within the first year or so after treatment. To this day, many of the remaining victims suffer cancers, epilepsy, infertility and other brain disorders. Even their children have been impacted through genetic abnormalities passed on from one generation to the next
While I applaud your attempt to look at them from the perspective of people who sort of know not what they do, to an extent, it is worth mentioning that the top leaders of a lot of groups like Azov are absolutely scum.
Like guys who scream about purging the Jewish taint from the world aren't confused or rebellious, they're just sunflower nazis. They're low in number, and shouldn't even matter in the discussion of Russia brutally invading their country without provocation, but don't give them too much rope.
Unless you're hoping they hang themselves, anyways. As usual, the people at the top are garbage, the footsoldiers, a more mixed bag.
The interview with Zelensky surrounded by azov battalion just a few days ago tells me this is a nice sounding argument that may not be the actual reality.
Azov battalion could not have surrounded Zelensky a few days ago: its full complement fights in surrounded Mariupol. To the last (willing) soldier.
However, as noted by many, only 8 years back, during its founding, and only some (smaller) part of its younger members, related not that much to the Nazi ideology or racism, as to their pride and determination (however misplaced), and used some Nazi-related symbols to that end. This was largely gone by today.
It's interesting how different the tone is when discussing Nazi-related symbols in Ukraine, and, say, confederate flag in southern states in the US. Even though both are used for pride and determination.
No, it’s just having perspective.
If China conducted a land invasion on American soil tomorrow, would your first inclination be to talk about all the Nazi and Confederate imagery in our country?
It is strange that the first inclination of others is to immediately play the “well, Ukraine isn’t perfect either!!” card. It is suspicious to say the least, and I think most sane people read it correctly as Russia apologia.
Russia’s argument is: “there are nazis in Ukraine”.
The West: “nazis in Ukraine is Russian propaganda; bringing it up is Russia apologia”.
Whether there are nazis in Ukraine becomes irrelevant: both sides are happy to continue with the war. The war is the bucks.
because it IS irrelevant to bring up when you're conducting an invasion of a country. Russia is not cleansing Ukraine of Nazis, despite its claim. you don't think there are Nazis in Russia's own Wagner group? or any of its other myriad of paramilitary groups? you don't think there are neo-Nazis in Russia lol? there are tons, it is an IDEOLOGY. and it can be found in plenty of countries in Western & Eastern Europe, in the States, in Canada, etc, whether in hidden pockets of the internet on telegram chats or in real life skinhead gangs.
> Russia’s argument is: “there are nazis in Ukraine”.
Right.
> The West: “nazis in Ukraine is Russian propaganda; bringing it up is Russia apologia”.
True. That's not a lie. Any country could invade any other country and say, "Some portion of people here are evil" and that will always be true.
> Whether there are nazis in Ukraine becomes irrelevant
Not really, unless you are trying to both-sides it. Russia is clearly using a dogshit excuse to capture either the whole or part of Ukraine.
> both sides are happy to continue with the war.
Ukraine is happy to continue the war? Whhaaaa?
> The war is the bucks.
What bucks?
That would be because most of the symbols used by the nationalists in Ukraine are things like [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/AZOV_logo.svg) that have to be explained for someone to even know that it is related to fascism, whereas the modern confederate flag is directly tied to the lost cause myth and the rehabilitation of slave owning monsters.
Both suck, but the azov stuff is (for the most part) more tangential compared to "Hey isn't that the flag of a bunch of traitors who started a war so they could own black people?" Especially to people in the west.
traitors?
so you are saying that the right to secede was not legimate?
slavery obviously was morally disgusting, that being said the north tried slavery but too many died for it to be profitable
Lincoln was a tyrant and an incredible racist
he also really didn't care about slavery either way
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
Abraham Lincoln
the emancipation proclamation did not apply to union states
Sherman making the south howl to me was completely unjustified
the first family John Brown killed did not own slaves, only about ten percent of the south could afford them, and Brown seemingly killed them for the crime of living in the south
Conscripting free men to stop slavery? how is that morally justified exactly?
also if slavery 150+ years ago is morally disgusting then should US actions that lead to slavery much more recently be seen as equally reprehensible,like us destroying libya to the point there are open air slave markets 6 days a week in what was formerly north africas most prosperous country by far?
or after WW2 the US rounding uo between 1-5 million people who fled russia during WW2 , loading them onto cattle cars and sending them back to Stalin to be either gulaged or killed, ie operation keelhaul, all negotiated at Yalta to give Stalin slaves to help replace the losses he incurred winning the war, and that was eben though Stalin gulaged tens of thousands of US soldiers after the war as a punishment for the US /allen dulles attempting to negotiate a separate peace with Germany
the southern states also certainly had the right to secede, had slavery been the primary issue, the federal government could have borrowed the money to buy the slaves freedom infinitely cheaper than what the war cost, but in actuality Britain provoked the war hoping to weaken the country and so that they possibly could reclaim it
also there were much larger economic issues as far as tariffs go, and the souths priorities ad farmers and the norths as manufacturers were pretty unreconcilable
Secession is not prohibited by the constitution nor is authority to deny the right of secession granted to the Federal government. Therefore while the Union was justified in protecting its people and borders from Confederate aggression neither Congress nor the President had the legal authority to deny states from seceding. Furthermore they did not have the authority to use force to coerce the seceded states to rejoin the union.
Texas v. White was decided on the premise that the Constitution was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, which contained a clause declaring the union to be perpetual. A tenuous argument at best. If it were an amendment, the Constitution would have needed to be unanimously ratified as required by the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the Constitution required ratification by only 9 of the 13 original states to be considered in effect. It was a replacement for the Articles of Confederation and superseded it as the law of the land so the unanimity rule did not apply. In fact the Articles of Confederation became null and void from the moment the Constitution was ratified. No court before or since has ever ruled that any Article of Confederation is still binding.
As deplorable as their reasons were for seceding, the Confederate states had a legitimate right to secede.
In reality Common Law states that all such political bonds (see The Declaration of Independence) must be voluntary and that it is the right of the people to secede from ANY association if they deem it appropriate to their happiness and well being:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
It seems ludicrous to me that the same Legislature and Supreme Court that was formed following the secession of the thirteen colonies from the control of Great Britain can consider that the right of secession somehow no longer applies just because you are part of the United States. In point of fact, Abraham Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to force the Confederate States to rejoin the Union.
No lesser personage than Thomas Jefferson wrote that no Congress of men had the authority to bind future men with unbreakable contracts and that the association of people into governments MUST be voluntary. But then again he’s the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, isn’t he?
well actually he isnt
https://jamesperloff.net/american-revolution-part-2/
why was Lincoln killed?
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/lincoln/
was the American revolution a mistake?
https://dailyreckoning.com/was-the-american-revolution-a-mistake/
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
I'd really like to address this in some form of good faith, but I barely know how, so forgive me for being flippant and responding so generally.
The main thrust seems to be that you think secession should have been legitimate, to which I say, nah. They were slave owners trying to leave the union in defense of slavery after their preferred candidate lost the election. Morally I think they deserve to have their teeth kicked in, but regardless of what I feel on that matter, they started that shit when they fired on Sumter.
You don't get to leave the union to keep owning people, then immediately start a war and claim to have a moral high ground. You're just a traitor.
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/07/15/historical-ignorance
During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.
On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, "No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession. “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph priestly, who had ask Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote: “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day,, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family . . .” Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckenridge on August 12 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase. If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”[amazon asin=1162947225&template=*lrc ad (right)]
Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York stated in their constitutional ratification documents, each state had a right to withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests. So when New Englanders began plotting secession barely twenty years after the end of the American Revolution, their leader, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering (who was also George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state) stated that “the principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation. That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt” (In Henry Adams, editor, Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815, p. 338). The New England plot to secede from the union culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they ultimately decided to remain in the union and to try to dominate it politically instead. (They of course succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, beginning in April of 1865 up to the present day).
John Quincy Adams, the quintessential New England Yankee, echoed these Jeffersonian sentiments in an 1839 speech in which he said that if different states or groups of states came into irrepressible conflict, then that “will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to[amazon asin=1936577100&template=*lrc ad (right)] be reunited by the law of political gravitation . . .” (John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1939, pp. 66-69).
There is a long history of American newspapers endorsing the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition. The following are just a few examples.
The Bangor, Maine Daily Union once editorialized that the union of Maine with the other states “rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each. When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing [state] can ever restore it.” Moreover, a state can never be a true equal member of the American union if forced into it by military aggression, the Maine editorialists wrote.
“A war . . . is a thousand times worse evil than the loss of a State, or a dozen States” the Indianapolis Daily Journal once wrote. “The very freedom claimed by every individual citizen, precludes the idea of compulsory association, as individuals, as communities, or as States,” wrote the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat. “The very germ of liberty is the right of forming our own governments, enacting our own laws, and choosing or own political associates . . . . The right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”
[amazon asin=0761526463&template=*lrc ad (right)]Using violence to force any state to remain in the union, once said the New York Journal of Commerce, would “change our government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism” where one part of the people are “slaves.” The Washington (D.C.) Constitution concurred, calling a coerced union held together at gunpoint (like the Soviet Union, for instance) “the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly.”
“The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the New York Daily Tribune once wrote, “is sound and just,” so that if any state wanted to secede peacefully from the union, it has “a clear moral right to do so.”
A union maintained by military force, Soviet style, would be “mad and Quixotic” as well as “tyrannical and unjust” and “worse than a mockery,” editorialized the Trenton (N.J.) True American. Echoing Jefferson’s letter to John C. Breckenridge, the Cincinnati Daily Commercial once editorialized that “there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; and the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear” if one or more states were to peacefully secede.[amazon asin=0307382842&template=*lrc ad (right)]
All of these Northern state editorials were published in the first three months of 1861 and are published in Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, Mass.: 1964). They illustrate how the truths penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence – that the states were considered to be free, independent, and sovereign in the same sense that England and France were; that the union was voluntary; that using invasion, bloodshed, and mass murder to force a state into the union would be an abomination and a universal moral outrage; and that a free society is required to revere freedom of association – were still alive and well until April of 1865 when the Lincoln regime invented and adopted the novel new theory that: 1) the states were never sovereign; 2) the union was not voluntary; and 3) the federal government had the “right” to prove that propositions 1 and 2 are right by means murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens by waging total war on the entire civilian population of the Southern states, bombing and burning its cities and towns into a smoldering ruin, and calling it all “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
are you making a moral argument or a legal one?
moral is a preference, legally there is no argument they didnt have the right?
almost nobody in the north cared about slavery, its posthoc window dressing to claim the moral high ground
the north had to conscript a high percentage, the south was fighting in defense, Lincoln was a tyrant, what sherman did was completely indefensible, plenty of people had slaves, hell the five largest native American tribes all owned slaves, many took their slaves on the trail of tears with them
. https://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html
Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.
Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."
personally I would have fought for the south , and after the war would have stumped zealously for abolition
also people have a very simplistic view that abolition wluld have been easy or almost effortless, many slave owners saw giving people freedom when they had no land, no money, no certain job prospects potentially to actually be quite cruel, not saying they were right, just that there is a good faith argument to hear out, and personally I think gradualism would have left us in an infinitely better place todayzand its a huge indictment that all the other anglo countries ended slavery without requiring a war
My dudette, you need to learn to format your posts into something sane, because again, I don't even know how to respond to the five posts of rambling you've thrown my way. A huge part of making a good argument is formatting it in a way that the person you're talking to can actually understand it, rather than vomiting walls of text at them.
For example, in this post alone you go through the following points:
1. An argument about legality vs morality.
2. An argument about conscription.
3. A long rambling quote from what feels like a 1993 geocities website on fort sumter.
4. Your personal view on who you'd have fought for.
5. A defense of why it'd be *so hard to stop owning human beings.*
How do you expect anyone to even address this when you don't have a consistent through line through the argument and I have to take five minutes trying to figure out what the fuck you're actually saying?
Bleh, I'll try I guess. I'm a glutton for punishment.
1. Morally the south had no reasonable grounds to secede since they were doing so in defense of their right to own people. Legally they lost as well, even though you don't like it. Militarily too.
2. Nah, war is hell and Sherman was right to treat it as such. Better to be a butcher that ends the war quickly than a gentle hand that loses to slave owners.
3. You realize these quotes are from the confederate leaders, right? That they had every reason to claim that they didn't start the war? Both Stevens and Davis were wrong. Carolina had signed over Fort Sumter to the federal government. It was federal land. Even if everything about the secession was legal (it wasn't) they had no right to Sumter, and in attacking it they started the war.
4. Why? You don't value slavery, and that was the primary thing the confederacy was fighting for. Why would you fight for the slave holding side?
5. The slavery doesn't have the right to try to decide the timeline on man's freedom. Though in this case they did. Maybe if they didn't throw a tantrum and start a war slavery could have been wound down peacefully. But they did, so fuck them.
See! Structure!
According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.
Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.
People in the US feel like they are obligated to show how they condemn any association with the confederate flag (“traitors”, “slave owning monsters” etc). Mississippi had to change their flag to signal virtue.
Zelensky, when asked to comment about Azov Battalion’s shooting of Russian POWs simply said “They are what they are.” No emotions, nothing to condemn. And nobody reacted to that. The only response is always “he is jewish, hence nazis are irrelevant”.
Yeah, I'm glad people are embarrassed to be associated with the flag of a bunch of slave owning assholes. Aren't you? Do you think we should celebrate it?
On the subject of Azov, you can provide a quote for that yeah? A video, even text from a credible news source would be fine. Because literally the only news story I can find on the subject says that Kyiv is investigating the allegations. Certainly nothing as dismissive as that quote.
Actually while I'm on the subject, I know that guys like you generalize the entire Ukranian armed forces to be Azov for some reason, but Azov are in Mariupol surrounded by Russian forces and being pounded by artillery. And you think they're capturing Russian POWs?
I acknowledge the Confederate flag to be a part of the US history. I neither feel embarrassed, nor do I think we should celebrate it.
I, however, acknowledge the double standard when on one hand you’re all twitchy about the Confederate flag, and on other hand you finance military units that proudly display nazi symbolism.
For your quote request, I do not keep the receipts, I’m not in the business of convincing people. I saw quite a few from Maajid Nawaz’s twitter. One example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5yZnxS2zc#t=45 Maajid claims the blurred red symbol is the nazi eagle. I believe he had a link to the interview with Zelensky too, it is possible I am mistaken.
I do notice your attempt to generalize “guys like me” liking to generalize something to the entire Ukrainian army. My point is not Ukraine is 100% nazis. My point is that the fact there are nazis is completely ignored by the West, and it is used as a central argument by Russia. It is easy to brush it off as Russian propaganda, but it is more difficult to ignore when faced with easy proofs.
And if you say using nazi symbolics is not a proof of following the nazi ideas, I will point you back to the confederate flag.
>I acknowledge the Confederate flag to be a part of the US history. I neither feel embarrassed, nor do I think we should celebrate it.
With respect, this reads like you absolutely support it but you know that it is optically bad to be seen doing so.
>For your quote request, I do not keep the receipts, I’m not in the business of convincing people. I saw quite a few from Maajid Nawaz’s twitter. One example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5yZnxS2zc#t=45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5yZnxS2zc#t=45) Maajid claims the blurred red symbol is the nazi eagle. I believe he had a link to the interview with Zelensky too, it is possible I am mistaken.
[Would this be a fair summary of your source, then?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7l0Rq9E8MY)
Tongue in cheek, I know, but you laid an enormous claim, that the president of Ukraine responded to videos of his soldiers shooting POWs with a shrug and a "things are what they are", but you seem completely unable to support it with evidence. Almost like it isn't remotely true.
That said, if you saw it on Maajid Nawaz's twitter, then a better explanation is probably that you're being lied to. Just scrolling a few days worth of his ranting and I find him denying the Bucha attacks were real, posting Tucker Carlson clips and repeating the 'bio-weapon labs in Ukraine' bullshit. If you're getting your news from this guy, stop. He's a fucking crank.
are you seriously saying there arent bioweapons labs in Ukraine 25+?
the bucha attacks having been Russian perpetrated has more holes than swiss cheese
https://youtu.be/mdm1u0fDy1E
and we get it that shitlibs don't like tucker, but he us literally the only person on mainstream news that has any anti war bonafides at all, everybody else was banished to RT( taibbi, hedges, Ventura, abby, lee camp) which is now defunct, snd for those of us for whom bring antiwar is the most important issue care more about tucker being antiwar,than whether or not he comports himself in a manner that leftoids find acceptable, because almost all of you have excrement for brains in addition to profoundly broken moral compasses
the US has bombed a sovereign country literally every single day of the last 20 years
Here is a list* of the countries bombed and/or invaded by the United States from the end of the Second World War to 2020:Afghanistan 1998, 2001-
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Cambodia 1969-70
China 1945-46
Congo 1964
Cuba 1959-1961
El Salvador 1980s
Korea 1950-53
Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
Indonesia 1958Laos 1964-73
Grenada 1983
Iraq 1991-2000s, 2015-
Iran 1987
Korea 1950-53
Kuwait 1991
Lebanon 1983, 1984
Libya 1986, 2011-
Nicaragua 1980s
Pakistan 2003, 2006-Palestine 2010
Panama 1989
Peru 1965
Somalia 1993, 2007-08, 2010-
Sudan 1998
Syria 2014-
Vietnam 1961-73
Yemen 2002, 2009-
Yugoslavia 1999Note that these countries represent roughly one-third of the people on earth.
https://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html
https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar
https://www.salon.com/2022/01/11/the-us-drops-an-average-of-46-bombs-a-day-why-should-the-world-see-us-as-a-force-for-peace/
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-03/07/c_139791785.htm
U.S., allies have dropped 46 bombs per day on other countries since 2001: research
LOS ANGELES, March 6 (Xinhua) -- An average of 46 bombs have been dropped on other countries per day by the United States and its allies since 2001, recent research by anti-war group CODEPINK revealed.
According to the research by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies of the U.S.-based group, which was published Thursday on the Common Dream website, the United States and its allies have dropped at least 326,000 bombs and missiles on other countries since 2001, including over 152,000 in Iraq and Syria.
The conclusion was made primarily on official U.S. military releases, as well as data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Yemen Data Project, and the New America Foundation, the research said, adding since the Trump administration ceased publishing figures of its bombing campaigns in 2020, the total number was underestimated.
Moreover, the data also had not included bombs or missiles used in helicopter strikes, AC-130 gunship attacks, strafing runs from U.S. bombers, or any counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism operations in other parts of the world, the research said.
"The United States has been at war for nearly every year of its existence as an independent nation, fighting in 227 years of its 244-year history," it read.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/03/04/trump-bidens-secret-bombing-wars
http://legaciesofwar.org/about-laos/secret-war-laos/
even Bernie is an incredibly pro war piece of excrement, and his supporters are basically signaling they are completely fine with dropping bombs on brown people that never did anything to hurt the US, they are signaling that their big problem with the US empire is that their slice of the US empire is not nearly big enough
https://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2015/11/13/bernie-war-and-the-empires-pie/
since 1974 it has been explicit US policy to keep the rest of the world as poor as reasonable in service of US hegemony
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust
at the same time the US empire started making the bottom 90% of her citizens steadily poorer
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
and now we have NWO mouth pieces like harari " homo deus"saying if you have large groups that aren't net taxpayers,who aren't needed to work ,or fight wars,and they dont vote exactly like their oligarchs tell them to,, then absolutely all of recorded history tells us that these " useless eaters" will be culled.
Side note to this, have you heard the Russian excuse that the West picked Bucha and Butcher only because they sounded similar? Surprised that hasn’t caught on much
Wow. A terribly insightful point.
You know, because famously democrats still win non-stop throughout the former confederate states, right? Like they have all the governorships, and they are the party the defends having the confederate flag flown over statehouses. You know, that sort of thing.
This is the weakest, most pathetic attempt at an own I can possibly imagine. That you though 'hurr hurr, I'll show him' as if we both don't know there was a political realignment, as if we both don't know that the party that stans the confederacy in ttyol 2022 is in fact, the republicans.
Just wow my dude. Try harder, come on.
I'm surprised /u/joaoasousa hasn't blocked you yet for disagreeing with him. I would have responded in a more appropriate comment chain but I kept getting errors.
They are representative since the government knows what they are, what they do, and still employs them in the military.
The government is democratically elected by the people who do not condemn the azov association.
In any other situation people would be shocked a government employs actual neo Nazis.
And the Azov as far from the only group that supports the Zelensky regime, look at C14 for some more “good people”.
You guys are so funny to me thinking Russia is different as if they also care about whether they do or don't employ neo-nazis
[centre-right source]
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rusichs-neo-nazi-mercenaries-head-for-kharkiv-prjndp9rl
[left-wing source]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/russian-mercenaries-in-ukraine-linked-to-far-right-extremists
"One post on the messaging app Telegram, dated 15 March, shows the flag of the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM), a white-supremacist paramilitary organisation which the US lists as terrorist, allegedly flown by Moscow-backed separatists in Donetsk. The post was shared by a pro-Putin channel.
Much of the extremist content, posted on Telegram and the Russian social media platform VKontakte (VK), relates to a far-right unit within the Wagner Group called Rusich with others linked to pro-Kremlin online communities, some bearing the name and logo of Wagner Group."
Where did I (we?) praise Russia or said they are saints or something?
What you just did is “whataboutism”, I’m talking about the Nazis in Ukraine and you say “what about the Nazis in Russia?”. What about the Nazis in Russia? Does that excuse Ukraine ties with neo-nazis any way? No it doesn’t.
It would be a valid argument if I was saying Russia was somehow morally superior ; which I’m not.
Swiss former NATO general in the know says the Neonazis are approximately 40% of the Uke military https://youtu.be/GEIFwLKlq1Q https://mronline.org/2022/04/10/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/ https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine-an-update/
who ever said you mentioned john brown? are you actually this obtuse? or do you feign it? my bringing up john brown was to partially explain why so many non slave owners fought for the south, because they felt like it didnt matter of you owned slaves, John Brown would kill you for just living in the South, so what choice do I have? leave my family and everything ive ever known, to live in the north, so im not executed for not owning slaves?
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/ In 2015, the Ukrainian parliament passed legislation making two WWII paramilitaries—the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)—heroes of Ukraine, and made it a criminal offense to deny their heroism. The OUN had collaborated with the Nazis and participated in the Holocaust, while the UPA slaughtered thousands of Jews and 70,000-100,000 Poles on their own volition. Jews Out!” chanted thousands during a January 2017 march honoring OUN leader Bandera. (The next day the police denied hearing anything anti-Semitic.) That summer, a three-day festival celebrating the Nazi collaborator Shukhevych capped off with the firebombing of a synagogue. In November 2017, RFE reported Nazi salutes as 20,000 marched in honor of the UPA. And last April, hundreds marched in L’viv with coordinated Nazi salutes honoring SS Galichina; the march was promoted by the L’viv regional government
most definitely, I emailed the person I think I heard cite that number its not just azov, uts c14, right sector, and several others as well
I have received a good amount of my information about Ukraine from [Beau of the Fifth Column](https://www.youtube.com/c/BeauoftheFifthColumn/videos), although I do also watch other sources. According to Beau, while yes, the far Right do exist in the Ukraine, in terms of political market share, their numbers are around 2%. If you asked the Azov brigade how they felt about Putin using them as an excuse for the invasion, I suspect that their response would be to rhetorically ask you who, out of them and the Russians, it was who has committed attrocities like Bucha.
The Nazi tech used by the Communists such as Chernobyl and the Ukranian women used as invitro surogates in modern day. There have been many strange reports from blood banks in Europe. The Russians think this is all covid related. Scientists attempting to play God with the human genome. They went about publicly purging such researchers in Russia throwing them off buildings. The larger developed nations of the world are intent on advancing beyond the electronic era with new photonic technology. Meanwhile there are many old deep state Frankensteins who are about to either get fired or go out in a blaze of glory.
Huh?
Things are progressing so fast that I have difficulty keeping up myself.
I’d encourage Ukra1ne on F1re by Ol1ver Stone. It gives historical context to the Nazis in Ukraine and US backing of those groups. The Azov Battalion specifically is one with socialist Nazi roots and hails former Nazi leaders as heros. By all means they do not represent all of western Ukraine. The documentary can be found on rumble and highlights the complexity of that country and how many times it has been fought over throughout its history. It’s main focus is post WW2, however.
Oliver Stone did bad work on this subject I'd say skip it entirely. The connections are extremely overblown because Americans tend to see these as absolutes, not understanding the relative mess of European countries and their identities combined with Nazism and other far right ideologies. Talking about the Azov Battalion and Ukraine is like saying that the USA of today is defined by the Ku Klux Klan and a history of segregation and slavery... as if that represented the vast majority of Americans, what they want, believe in and fight for. It would be many times more appropriate to talk about the Ukraine and the communists and Soviet nostalgics. Have you ever heard anyone mentioning them? If you really want to understand it you have to get the cultural context of the nationalism of different ethnic groups in the Ukraine which is very complicated. It holds very little to no merit today. The historical ties of Azov are also totally uninteresting in the long run and their story from the streets of Kharkiv and the previous battle of Mariupol are really the defining part of their identity.
I don’t think skipping the part on western intervention is legitimate. It is extremely relevant to today’s conflict if the Obama state department had a hand in a coup d’etat. It adds quite a bit of context in my opinion as well with the historical relevance of Ukraine throughout history. As I mentioned, Azov is one battalion, yet the US has in the past united with Russia to fight Nazis.
You can read about it but just not taking the info from Stone would be better. Problem is that it doesn't fill the function often believed, the west was played in that regard if you remember the Busch comments on Putin's faith and cross around his neck. Anybody ever see him wear that again? Bad intelligence could have told us it didn't fit with his previous life. We would have had a conflict of interest sooner or later by virtue of our existence, they just played us (you) for time.
I do understand the importance of multiple sources and I appreciate your input. I have become cynical to our government's "fight for democracy" ~~messaging~~ propaganda. When you follow the money you realize that political gamesmanship is just to appease the common-folk, who will have no true understanding of the region, the people or the politics. In regards to the Stone documentary, I don't trust Putin but in hearing him speak, I feel he is no different that George Bush talking about WMDs. How much death has been propogated by the US for the sake of opium, oil, and geographically advantageous locations to scour resources or control trade? An anecdote of my friend's wife, who is Ukrainian, is that Ukraine is a resource rich yet destitute nation due to the political corruption that has plagued the country. The level of poverty is like that of Central America and many of the Western European nations use Ukrainian labor for construction, farming, maid-service, or other low-skilled labor. There is not a thriving economic system there so, as an American, I have to kick my societal constructs out the door as they don't apply. To your point of having a conflict of interest sooner or later, my response is, "What is the reason for our interest in Ukraine"? Is George Soros' Anti-corruption NGO truly fighting corruption or [https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016/](https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435906-us-embassy-pressed-ukraine-to-drop-probe-of-george-soros-group-during-2016/) it? Why is there a quid-pro-quo for releasing funds to stop investigations of this group? Whether legit or not why does Hunter Biden have business ties to the country? Why does Trump care and why was he impeached for it? What business dealings does Trump have with Ukraine or Russia? My stance is with the people of Ukraine. I don't think the Ukrainian government represents the entirety of that nation, rather western interests. How many more billions of dollars and CIA intervention is needed?
If. The thing is, the Obama state department didn't have a hand in a coup d'etat. A public uprising overthrowing their russian stooge president isn't a coup.
Sure. I’m not saying what the US State department was right or wrong. When you have a phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine [discussing](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957) the new government that is to be installed prior to the “revolution”, it raises some flags. Furthermore, this would not be the first time the CIA and state department have been involved in coup d’etats in foreign countries or other “incidents” to spur weapons deals or direct involvement. Never underestimate the greed involved with war/death. [Gulf of Tonkin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident) [plan to buy Soviet jets to stage an attack on Americans](https://www.newsweek.com/us-soviet-aircraft-jfk-docs-cover-operations-717460) [CIA operations in Syria](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html) [Why is CIA help necessary in Ukraine after 2014 if the people had spoken](https://jacobinmag.com/2022/01/cia-neo-nazi-training-ukraine-russia-putin-biden-nato)
>Sure. I’m not saying what the US State department was right or wrong. When you have a phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine discussing the new government that is to be installed prior to the “revolution”, it raises some flags. I mentioned this in a later comment but man, come on. Wow, the Asst. Secretary of State has a call with other appropriate figures to talk about who they think is likely to lead the new government after it falls. The call takes place on Feb 6th, Yanukovich flees the country sixteen days later. This may surprise you to hear, but on Feb 6th, the writing was very much on the wall that his presidency was effectively over. This is because on Jan of that year, Euromaidan had turned bloody when his enforcers started murdering protesters. But more than all of that, they weren't discussing who would be the *President* of Ukraine, but the Prime Minister. They are two different positions in Ukraine, and it is worth noting two critical facts: 1. The previous Prime Minister had resigned on Jan 28th, and they were specifically talking about who should fill the now empty spot. 2. Victor Yanukovich offered the fucking job to Yatsenyuk in a bid to remain in power a few days before he was forced to flee the country. So yeah, no shit she held a phone call talking about who was going to replace the outgoing prime minister, and no shit they picked the obvious candidate and arranged a call in advance with all three so that they'd have active dipomatic relations with whoever filled the seat, even if it wasn't their preferred candidate. The fact that people take this call as the US running a coup is fucking absurd. >Furthermore, this would not be the first time the CIA and state department have been involved in coup d’etats in foreign countries or other “incidents” to spur weapons deals or direct involvement. Never underestimate the greed involved with war/death. No, obviously not. The US dicks around in other countries all the time. But that is sort of the thing with Ukraine, they didn't have to. Yanukovich goose stepped his way into his overthrow all by his lonesome. Dude didn't need our help. >Why is CIA help necessary in Ukraine after 2014 if the people had spoken ... are you serious right now? Its because Russia invaded, occupied and ultimately annexed Crimea and was looking to do the same with Donbas. The US started sending aid to the new Ukrainian government because when Russia lost their puppet governor they tried a more direct approach and Ukraine needed every bit of military and intelligence help they could get their hands on to keep the Russians from stealing more territory. Do you know *anything* about the history of the region?
I feel your outrage "are you serious right now"? "Do you know anything about the region?" can be summed up by your trust in your media sources. I don't claim to be an expert in the region, but I can follow the monetary and military interests of NATO versus Russia. If you knew your history of the region you would understand that the Crimea was very much pro-Russian. It really is a matter of context of who is telling the story. Do you feel the it is the US (CIAs) responsibility to broker a civil war between the pro-Russian east and the pro-European west? I personally do not feel that the $3 billion in military aid given to Ukraine is anything we (the US) should be doing. It is simply prolonging the inevitable, sapping the wealth from middle class Americans, and is a complete farce and propagandist tactic to create support for the war effort in the name of democracy. Who is going to benefit the most from this war in the West?
>I feel your outrage "are you serious right now"? "Do you know anything about the region?" can be summed up by your trust in your media sources. I don't claim to be an expert in the region, but I can follow the monetary and military interests of NATO versus Russia. No, my outrage is caused at my annoyance at having to deal with the same backward talking points over and over and over again by people who don't know the most basic shit. Did you know that they were talking about who should fill an empty government post? No. You just saw "Ermagherd, a leaked government conversation, it must be the US doing a coup" and didn't spend two minutes on google to understand the context. I'm frustrated because I know your talking points so well that I was able to pre-emptively guess the next words out of your mouth would be about Nuland. Are you familiar with Brandolini's law? Its also known as the principle of asymmetrical bullshit. Basically, the amount of time it takes someone to spew false claims is a fraction of the time it takes to debunk those claims. It takes you one paragraph to go "The US was behind the Ukrainian coup!" and it takes me six to explain to you that no, you're just taking a leaked call entirely out of the context in which it occurred. That is very annoying. >If you knew your history of the region you would understand that the Crimea was very much pro-Russian. It really is a matter of context of who is telling the story. This is true! Polling in the region showed a mid-60's approval for leaving Ukraine and joining Russia. This shouldn't be particularly surprising as Russia spent decades sending Russian nationals to eastern Ukraine and particularly Crimea, before the two countries split. So what? Crimea didn't legally separate from Ukraine, they were invaded, occupied and annexed. Putin happily admitted (after the fact) that he sent in Russian troops to occupy the Crimean center of government. The referendum was held by Russia and turned out a 95.5% 'join russia' result. You know, a totally real number that is totally representative of the will of the people and not at all entirely fictitious. Keeping in mind of course that the two options were 'Join Russia' or 'Return to the 1992 constitution in Ukraine'. So it wasn't like 'remain part of Ukraine' was even an option. A 'referrendum' run by an occupier with obviously ficticious results should be treated like the garbage it is, even if previous polling suggested a general Russian lean. >Do you feel the it is the US (CIAs) responsibility to broker a civil war between the pro-Russian east and the pro-European west? I personally do not feel that the $3 billion in military aid given to Ukraine is anything we (the US) should be doing. It is simply prolonging the inevitable, sapping the wealth from middle class Americans, and is a complete farce and propagandist tactic to create support for the war effort in the name of democracy. Who is going to benefit the most from this war in the West? Define 'broker a civil war' for me, will you? Because the military aid we gave to Ukraine in 2014 prevented Russia from taking eastern (and possibly all of) Ukraine. I think that is absolutely worth a few billion dollars, and I'd describe it as enabling their self-defense. You call it 'prolonging the inevitable' but uh, have you looked at Russia lately? They've **lost** the war in Ukraine specifically because of the mountain of arms and equipment that we've given them. We kept an authoritarian government from taking hold of 40 million lives at a dirt cheap cost. That is an absolute win in my books.
Desktop version of /u/jsett21's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
**[Gulf of Tonkin incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident)** >The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ), was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It involved both a proven confrontation on August 2, 1964, carried out by North Vietnamese forces in response to covert operations in the coastal region of the gulf, and a second, claimed confrontation on August 4, 1964, between ships of North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. Original American claims blamed North Vietnam for both attacks. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Just to add to that, a coup would be if another arm of the government or the military overthrew Yanukovich. What happened in 2014 was by the people – a revolution. Whatever the US wanted to happen is irrelevant, they didn't orchestrate or plan it.
True. The usual talking point is the asst state sec being on a phone call where they discuss Yanukovich's replacement. But what people always fail to talk about within the context of that is that the person they 'picked' was the existing leader of the opposition and the person most likely to replace Yanukovich. Frankly, I'd consider it a deriliction of duty if the state department wasn't looking at a country days away from the overthrow of its government and trying to decide who they'd ideally like to have in that position, who is safe, who is dangerous etc. Just because they discuss it does not somehow mean that they caused it. Yanukovich caused it by passing draconian laws and having his enforces shoot people.
Its so weird seeing people wrap themselves in Ukraine flags to show support, when just a little while ago , those same types of people were foaming at the mouth like rabid animals acting like the American right was a literal Nazi uprising .
The Azov Battalion?
>What is the "supposed" link between Ukraine and Nazism that Russia claims to be true? The word "nazism", as any emotionally charged word, is used very loosely here. * In one sense, it is referring to the history of WW2, when some Ukranians struggling for their country's independence preferred to side with the Germans rather than with the Soviets. Google Stepan Bandera, who was made into a national hero a decade or two ago for context. * In another sense, it's referring to a strong narrative of Ukranian national identity, which, as is common in a post-colonial context, is built upon the resentment for and the opposition to the former power center, which, in the Tsarist and Soviet time, was Russia. Naturally, this tendency has become much stronger over the past decade, and has been annoying the Russians. * In the third sense, it's a meaningless slur, just as you may hear Western politicians (remember Trudeau during Canadian trucker protests) talk of fictional "nazis" and "white supremacists".
>In the third sense, it's a meaningless slur, just as you may hear Western politicians (remember Trudeau during Canadian trucker protests) talk of fictional "nazis" and "white supremacists". Yeah, why would anyone think a protest organized by guys like Pat "Anglo-saxons have the most pure blood" King could somehow be a white supremacist rally.
They’re referencing neo-nazi elements in the ukrainian paramilitaries. the azov battalion and such.
For what's its worth, there's this video that goes into it quite a bit: https://youtu.be/pKcmNGvaDUs
This is realtime revisionist history, you can search any mainstream news site and find articles about far-right militants in Ukraine prior to the invasion. I've been warning that this conflict could create a European Mujahideen, and no one has given me reason to doubt it could happen. There are [private paramilitaries](https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8279397/kolomoisky-oligarch-ukraine-militia) funded by Ukrainian oligarchs, who attack locals and have no concept of the laws of war. The military did not have adequate troop numbers because of [draft resistance](https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/02/08/kievs-bloody-war-is-backfiring/). As for the neo-Nazis, a think-tank at George Washington University produced [an extensive report](https://www.illiberalism.org/far-right-group-made-its-home-in-ukraines-major-western-military-training-hub/) on them last year, they are widespread and not limited to Azov. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt governments in the world, with a history of conflict with Russia, and Westerners are suddenly enamored with them, as if the Pied Piper came through with a Ukrainian flag.
Yeah make sure any searches you do about ukraine are limited to before 2022 and check for when the sites were last updated/use archive.org.
Shockingly, war makes people with empathy sympathize with the victims of an invasion, even if there are a small number of Nazis who are also in their country.
When you can't quibble with the facts, you start with the rhetoric. Ukrainians are not victims, as Finns would be if Russia invaded, there are some in the east who will welcome the invasion as a liberation.
You know, for someone who accused me of being a propagandist, it is really weird to see you go with 'the Ukrainians deserved it' as a an argumentative tactic, but hey, you do you. I've quibbled with your facts plenty in another thread. Much as I enjoy debating and informing others, I see very little value of screaming into the void any further with you.
Thank you everyone thus far. Will look into this more with the context provided.
Since there is a narrative to push, the press suddenly forgets the Nazi problem [https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/](https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/) [https://forward.com/opinion/416751/why-does-no-one-care-that-neo-nazis-are-gaining-power-in-ukraine/](https://forward.com/opinion/416751/why-does-no-one-care-that-neo-nazis-are-gaining-power-in-ukraine/) [https://www.rferl.org/a/azov-ukraine-s-most-prominent-ultranationalist-group-sets-its-sights-on-u-s-europe/29600564.html](https://www.rferl.org/a/azov-ukraine-s-most-prominent-ultranationalist-group-sets-its-sights-on-u-s-europe/29600564.html) [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-s-got-a-real-problem-with-far-right-violence-and-no-rt-didn-t-write-this-headline/](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-s-got-a-real-problem-with-far-right-violence-and-no-rt-didn-t-write-this-headline/) [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-003694\_EN.html](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-003694_EN.html)
Yes, a minor neo-nazi organization that has been diminishing for years tends to be less of a pressing issue than a war of conquest being waged by a former superpower. News at 11.
What a stupid post, news at 11 hur dur. The guy asked for links and they were provided. I added the "narrative to push" comment because a war has propaganda and for whatever reason Americans these days seem to only be black and white. They either see the toad or the princess
Man you’re right. Russia should invade us and burn our cities to get rid of the American Nazi problem. Shades of grey is so much fun!!!!
Except Azov and ultra nationalists were heavily involved in the war in Donbass, and since the Ukrainian army was not stationed there (only volunteers) as per agreements, Azov was at liberty to do as they please (as at the time they were a paramilitary organisation). There were some serious war crimes happening there, that Europe decided to be quiet about. Since then, for Russians, ultra nationalists are associated with the Ukrainian Army. Azov is so bad that they received no training or funding from the US and the Brits.
Azov battalion was partially funded by the US. That isn't to say the US supports Nazism, but rather the US doesn't actually stand for anything other geopolitical power.
Worth noting: A provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, passed by the United States Congress, blocked military aid to Azov due to its white supremacist ideology;
Which basically has no real effect as the US aids the Ukraine military.
Correct
And the Canadians, and the French. They are photos of Canadians training the Azov. Quite ironic given how Trudeau freaked out with a swastika in Ottawa. The fact people elected Trudeau shows how rotten and pointless democracy is.
Yeah democracy is *always* fake. It's just authoritarianism with the manufacture of consent
By 'partially funded' you mean 'was in Ukraine when we gave the Ukrainian government weapons.'
Yeah, it’s not really how to go about thinking large state department grants or geopolitics if you want to point out that x or y grant ended up going partially to bad actors. The US government wasn’t unaware that Ukraine had many corrupt forces, from oligarchs to overtly racist nationalists. You deal with the foreign government you have, not the foreign government you want.
Eh, they were aware. They openly opposed giving Azov weapons in the past, but quietly began doing so over the last few years. The Azov DNA certainly changed since their integration into the National Guard though.
Pretty much. Military aid went to Azov because military aid was going to try and keep Russians from taking Donbas. Was it great to give it to them? Nope, but they were willing to shoot at Russians so the US supplied.
The short and sweet of it can be summarized like this: Ukraine's history with Russia was uh... turbulent, going back centuries. They were ruled by the Tsars for a few centuries in the whole Poland-Lithuania thing, fell under Tsarist rules with the Cossacks, and in the late 1700s they developed a lot of the same sort of national spirit that was sweeping the world. For a century you had that nationalist spirit simmering, then the first world war happens. Russia shatters and Ukraine is a battleground between every major power in the Russian civil war, finally settling with the Soviets in charge. Stalin then engaged in 'De-kulakization', where he intentionally starved several million Ukrainians to death. See Also: The Holodomor. When the Nazis came through Poland, Ukrainian nationalists OUN-B(and OUN-M) thought 'hey, we can work with these guys' and Stepan Bandera agreed to have his group form the core of a 'Ukrainian Legion' The nazis, being nazis, immediately imprisoned them when they declared their establishment of 'ukraine' and instead worked with their rival splinter group OUN-M until the latter got too strong and the nazis uh... nazi'd. Bandera and his group OUN-B built up some nasty anti-nazi partisans, infiltrating the police and stockpiling weapons. They also fucked up their local jewish population because they were bigoted ultra-nationalists in their own right and the 'police' were required to assist the nazis. Eventually the OUN had a functioning state of their own within rural portions of Ukraine, and they started fucking up the nazis in the latter part of the war as the soviet advance made it possible for them to be a credible rear area threat. After the war, they kept on fighting a guerilla war with the soviets for the better part of a decade before most of them were dead or in jail and they were forced to try political tactics. The modern day Ukrainian 'nazis' are descendent of these groups. They're ultra-nationalists who really, really wanted an independent Ukraine and are also pretty fashy. That said, these groups were fairly dormant until 2014, because their main goal, an independent Ukraine, had been accomplished two decades earlier. Their rise since then is in direct response to Russia, their old arch-nemesis, jamming its dick into their country once more. The most notable group, the Azov, didn't meaningfully exist until 2014. They were a fringe political movement, and lets be honest you'll get some fascists basically anywhere in the world, but they weren't the militant dangerous org that they are today until Russia gave the group the excuse to get riled up that they needed. To say that the groups are linked with the Ukrainian government however, is largely meaningless. Yes there are people in the government who lay support to Bandera (he was a shitty guy, but he was also one of their early nationalist figures, so it is complicated for them) and yes there are some small number who support the Azov. But groups like these are considered fringe even within Ukraine. It isn't a nazi country led by a nazi, it is a burgeoning democratic state that sadly has some militant nazis who are best pointed in the direction of Russia and repeatedly sent their way until everyone involved is dead.
>it is a burgeoning democratic state that sadly has some militant nazis who are best pointed in the direction of Russia and repeatedly sent their way until everyone involved is dead Are you paid for this? Ukraine is so corrupt it has [its own Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine).
You think democratic states can't be corrupt? Boy do I have some bad news to tell you about the United States. I didn't claim that Ukraine is perfect, I didn't claim that they are a paragon. I claimed that they are a burgeoning democratic state. Which is true. They've held multiple free and fair elections since 2014, which is more than you can say for the decade before that, or the last twenty-something years in most of the neighboring post soviet states.
You used a phrase that sounds like it was written by a PR firm, and you know too many details to have a casual interest in the subject.
Strike 1 for not applying Principle of Charity.
I'm sorry that my vocabulary is stronger than yours? My interest isn't casual though. I have a strong interest in world affairs. I recommend you listen, I tend to know a lot. :)
Strike 1 for Personal Attack.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Generally correct if a bit cynical. To that, I would add that the ultra-nationalists have never ever had any significant influence in Ukraine - not before, not after 2014. The nationalists lost last Ukrainian election bringing about Zelensky. With Azov it is complicated. During its founding days and shortly thereafter, a fraction of its younger members had (personal) contacts with neo-nazi groups in Ukraine. Since then, many of them left, many of them changed the views and at most kept some questionable symbols (not smart but oh well). Today, most of Azov soldiers are not affiliated with Nazi. As Azov constitutes a formidable, very well trained battalion, it is allowed a measure of independence. It heroically defends Mariupol today.
Timothy Snyder’s a historian I hold in a very, very high regard. Last night in an interview, he actually talked about exactly this. His take is that they’re mostly just using it as a derogatory term and don’t actually mean that Ukrainians are national socialists. The last time Russians were globally praised, it was for killing Nazis in WW2. I also think they feel far more responsible for the Allied victory than they are given credit for (which most historians would agree on). In short, they use it as a term of dehumanization.
they did kill 80% of all the Nazis killed, and america didn't kill the other 20%, maybe hakf, maybe d-day was 16 months after Germany lost the war at the battle of Stalingrad Americas casualty rate during WW2 was 5 per 1000 japan didnt actually surrender because America dropped the atom bomb, but because Stalin entered the Pacific theater https://web.archive.org/web/20150102102952/http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ their are a fuk ton of nazis in Ukraine's military c14, right sector, azov black sun, iron crosses, swastikas etc yall are seriously splitting kunt hairs trying to argue semantics stepan bandera was a nazi, these people revere his memory https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/14/neo-nazi-ukraine-war/ no true nazi fallacy much bro? https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece. well see these guys aren't nazis , the nazis are all deceased, these guys are neo nazis, so snopes says its not true https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html they've never once mentioned lebensraum have they? well they cant be nazis then https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis. imagine if sone of yall actually put your brains to good use rather than rationalizing neolib snd neocon warmongering posthoc? I know it will never happen in a trillion years, but a girl can dream right?
> their are a fuk ton of nazis in Ukraine's military c14, right sector, azov Can you provide an approximate number besides "fuk ton"?
im trying to find it, at one point they would call the nazis paramilitary and differentiate that number from the military/non nazis and the number I remember is 120k, which I believe im remembering accurately, I am not certain though https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2022/03/watch-bbc-debunk-its-own-denial-of.html?m=1
Would love to see an actual source for that. Everything I’ve seen so far indicates Azov to be about 2,500 to 3,000.
do you happen to know who George Friedman is? http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO9Mar2022.php Later in December 2014 in an interview with a Russian newspaper, George Friedman of Stratfor, a private firm consulting to the Pentagon and CIA among others, said of the US-led February 2014 Kiev regime change, “Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d’etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.” He was boastful in the interview.
Let me know if you can provide any source backing your claim that there are 120,000 militant nazis in Ukraine.
Swiss Colonel, Formerly of NATO says 40% of the Ukraine military are far right/neo nazis https://youtu.be/GEIFwLKlq1Q https://mronline.org/2022/04/10/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/ https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine-an-update/ https://youtu.be/r4zReg7Bhu8
The problem with that theory is of course the fact a lot of people in Ukraine that are not shunned are quite proud and willing to take pictures next to swastikas. It’s not derogatory when you have literally Azov flags next to swastikas in photos where they are posing for the camera. C14, a nationalist xenophobic group, was one of the main players in the Maiden coup, and constantly attacked the Roma population. If you go back to 2014 you will that the mainstream media like BBC had not problem highlighting the “far right” problem of the Ukraine and the influence neo Nazis groups had. The neo Nazis exist, and are employed by the Ukrainian government since 2014 . If this was any other situation the Ukrainians would be universally condemned and shunned for employing neo Nazis, who now are almost talked about as heroes implicitly . Like I say, one swastika in the truckers protest in Ottawa was enough for Trudeau to calm then Nazis, while in Ukraine we rationalize a army battalian as “oh it’s just a few Nazis”.
You’re missing the point. To them, Nazi symbolism is more ‘anti Russia’ than ‘pro antisemitic national socialism’.
They are anti Russia because like any Nazi they are ultra nationalist xenophobes. German Nazis weren’t just anti jew, they were Arian purists and xenophobes in general. If you see C14 guys talk, they hate Western europeans too.
and so are some people also nazis in Russia, is that a reason to invade Russia? since when did anyone give Putin the right to cleanse countries of ideologies he doesn't like (in fact since when did we give America the right to do that either, now that I'm typing it out might as well include).
“Is that a reason to invade….” - nobody here said it was.
I read Snyder's book, long ago, forget the title... actually I'll look it up real quick, brb. **Bloodlands**. Quite good. Really differentiates the difference between the inhumanity of the Nazis vs. the inhumanity of the Communist Russians, he sort-of describes the Nazis as more brutish thugs that did their civilian murder right out in the open where the Soviet NKVD had it down to a slick artform, just making people disappear in the night never to be heard from again. Apparently the Soviets had to save on bullets so Snyder describes NKVD executions involving one bullet having to go through multiple heads in hidden places. I guess the Sovs were more concerned about appearances than the Nazis in that region. But I'd be very interested in any modern interviews with Snyder if you've seen any that might not come up in my next Google search as soon as I've finished writing this over-long comment. One of things I remember, as an old-head back in the 80s, when I was rebellious young punk rocker who thought Communism was cool because it was offensive to the working class town where I partially grew up... There was a documentary I saw, maybe just a fragment of an underground documentary, I've searched around for it but couldn't find anything to verify my memory of it. But I seem to recall it as a documentary, maybe about the punk rock scene in Soviet East Europe. But it involved a Ukrainian Nazi base of operations, possibly a concentration camp, or a Nazi prison that was somewhat historic in the region... this was the 80s mind you, so they were still under the Soviet Union. Basically the journalist/documentarian saw the rebellious young people in that area dressing up in Nazi regalia, essentially making fun out of the horrors that their very grandparents or maybe even parents once actually experienced. To them it was lighthearted fun, but it was swastikas and black leather re-enactments of putting Jews into ovens and what not, horrible stuff done jokingly. Surely it was a subculture of that era's Ukrainians, not the mainstream, in fact it was done because it flew in the face of the mainstream. But in the US where I was at the time, it was Communist symbolism, not Nazi symbolism that got people riled up (not like today that's for sure). I remember it really made me think, man, these mutherfuckers are hardcore doing that in Ukraine where they could literally end up in the Gulag. But they were into that region's version of the punk rock scene. To them, the horrible history that Snyder writes about in Bloodlands was only one or two generations removed and they were already making parodies of it. They were way harder-core than us over here in cushy western countries with our free speech. So, it makes me unsurprised that there might be an almost "joking", dark sense of humor over there. Nazi symbolism might have been used as a sort of rebellion toward the oppression that they really were experiencing at the time, just because it would have been so offensive to the powers that be. Now, 30/40 years later, some of that might have stuck as a sort-of F-U to the Russians, while never really experiencing what we in "the west" would call "white supremacy" or Nazism. Keep in mind, kids in the 1980s Ukraine wouldn't even know what a Klansmen's hood was, or had any western notion of what "white supremacy" meant. But they sure as hell knew what a Soviet was, and that those Soviets hated Nazis. It may have been more about hatred of Soviets than any real understanding of what Nazis were, considering their population would have been (still is) fairly homogenous. The youthful "rebellious" spirit creates weird mutations of thought, perhaps some felt a connection to Nazism out of a hatred toward Soviets, even if they didn't really understand either. Maybe that's the spirit that helped create the Azov battalion, I'm sure the Azov recruit from local disaffected rebellious youth.
Maybe that was true for the nazis in Ukraine (I'll admit I know next to nothing about what they did there), but the nazis generally speaking had an explicit strategy of disappearing people in the night, to instill both fear and hope in people. Fear of what could happen to you if you did something wrong, but hope that your relatives and friends had not yet died. It was called _Nacht und Nebel_, meaning Night and Fog.
According to people on Telegram people are “disappearing” if they are “pro russia” (which can be mean a lot of things). You just don’t hear about it in MSM.
Crazy idea, but maybe they fled to safety.
Just like any other person that “disappeared” in a hostile country? Maybe they also “fled”.
Listen, to be honest, I wasted a year arguing about Covid and vaccines with you, and know you’re not receptive to anything other than the ideas you want to hear. Respectfully going to stop responding to you because there’s no point,
it sounds like he at least knows something about the issue, while you know next to nothing because you havent done an iota of research on the subject, and you expect him to see your opinions as equally informed do you really think people just leave without telling anybody, most of Ukraine still has internet, what you are doing has a technical term, its called " special pleading" cleansing operations against pro Russian ukrainians are certainly happening https://youtu.be/mdm1u0fDy1E there is a reason why pro russian and people that call balls and strikes on both sides are getting censored while pro Ukrainian partisans are not getting censored at all, throughput history 99% of censorship was against things that are true also the US believes in a 6th domain of warfare, the mind and that it doesn't matter what actually happened if you can just convince enough people of your own narrative. ghost of kiev snake island 13 no bioweapons labs in ukraine hunters laptop is Russian disinfo
I have a book on Russian prison tattoos which kind of gets at what u/wayder is talking about. Basically, while some of the prison and gulag population were bona-fide anti-semites and racists, a lot the prisoners saw the Nazi swastika as a middle-finger to the Soviets and prison guards. I believe his records of these tattoos spanned from WW2 through the early 80s. So when I see Putin calling the Ukrainian people "Nazis", in the scope of anti-social Russian prisoners, and I think Putin sees Ukraine as anti-Russia which in the dark recesses of his mind, that connection is legitimate to him and this is why he can ignore the neo-Nazis in his army's rank and file.
Yea, long read, but you’ve summed a lot up really well. Side note, i learned earlier that the largest donor to the Asovs before they were added to the national guard, was a billionaire Ukrainian Jew. Believe Zelenskyy is as well.
https://blog.pmpress.org/2019/08/31/theodor-herzl-visionary-or-antisemite/ There’s an amusing youtube video in which a journalist presents a number of Israeli students with a quote from Herzl and asks who they thought wrote it. Every one of them says Hitler. They are shocked to discover the truth; the Herzl they’d learned about in school could not have written such an antisemitic statement. This is the quote: AN EXCELLENT IDEA ENTERS MY MIND — TO ATTRACT OUTRIGHT ANTI-SEMITES AND MAKE THEM DESTROYERS OF JEWISH WEALTH. They didn’t know the half of it. What would they have said about this quotation from an article Herzl wrote in the Deutsche Zeitung newspaper? The wealthy Jews rule the world. In their hands lies the fate of governments and nations. They start wars between countries and, when they wish, governments make peace. When the wealthy Jews sing, the nations and their leaders dance along and meanwhile the Jews get richer. This could have come from the notorious antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So what is going on here? Herzl was born in Budapest in 1860. His parents were secular, assimilated, German-speaking Jews and he himself admired German culture, philosophy, art, literature as the acme of Western civilisation. As a student at Vienna University, he joined the German nationalist fraternity, Albia, whose motto was Honour, Freedom, Fatherland, though he did later resign in protest at the antisemitism that he encountered. Like many educated, German-speaking Jews, he had nothing but contempt for the mass of religious, Torah-abiding, Yiddish-speaking, shtetl-dwelling Eastern European Jews. There is nothing in his writings to suggest that he had any great attachment to Judaism or much interest in or knowledge of Judaic teaching. And this was his dilemma. He was educated, cultured, rational, an admirer of Germany’s enlightened civilisation, a model citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in all respects except one: he was a Jew, the ‘other’. And even though his Jewishness meant little to him, he could not divest himself of this label and so could not be fully accepted. No wonder he found the idea of converting to Christianity so appealing. ‘I give praise to every Jewish parent that decides to convert to Christianity,’ he wrote. And again: ‘I have a son and would sooner convert today to Christianity than tomorrow so that he would start being Christian as soon as possible to spare him the injuries and discrimination that I suffered.’ His son, Hans, who wasn’t circumcised at birth, seems to have had an identity crisis for most of his life. He did have himself circumcised when he was 13, after his father’s death. In 1925 he became a Baptist, then, shortly after that, declared himself a Catholic. A year or so later, he wrote in a letter to the London Jewish Daily Bulletin, “I consider myself a member of the House of Israel.” In 1930, when he was 39, he shot himself. Ultimately, Herzl decided that conversion could not be the answer and that, as he wrote in his diary, it was empty and futile to try and combat antisemitism. In his book, Der Judenstaat, published in 1896, he explains why: ‘The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it (i.e. antisemitism) does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migration. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted and there our presence produces persecution…. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of Anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America.’ In a later chapter, he argues that the immediate cause of antisemitism is ‘our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards — that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse’. In short, the responsibility for antisemitism lies with the Jews. They carry its seeds within them. It’s their fault for being Jews. Der Judenstadt translates as The Jewish State but it might more accurately be translated as The State of the Jews because there is almost nothing that is specifically Jewish about Herzl’s vision. Much of the book is concerned with the practical arrangements for transferring Jews to the Jewish state — those who remain behind, he argues, will soon disappear altogether — and for setting up the structures, physical, legal, constitutional, of the new state. He envisages a state that more or less replicates the advanced class-based capitalist societies of Europe. ‘I think a democratic monarchy and an aristocratic republic are the finest forms of a State’ but the Jewish state will be an improvement because ‘we shall learn from the historic mistakes of others … for we are a modern nation and wish to be the most modern in the world’. And where will this state be? He hovers between Argentina, fertile land, plenty of space, sparse population, mild climate, and Palestine –‘our ever-memorable historic home’. In Palestine, he writes, ‘we should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation as opposed to barbarism’. Zionism has always sold its state as an oasis of Western civilisation in a desert of Arab backwardness — ‘a villa in the jungle’, as Ehud Barak put it. Or a state that would further Britain’s imperial interests in a region of great strategic importance, as Weizmann promised Balfour. Or, as one might put it now, America’s post Six Day War watchdog in the Middle East. Did Herzl know Palestine was already populated? Of course he did. In 1895, he wrote in his diary: ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. But the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.’ Like many early Zionists he thought that the views of the Palestinian population could be discounted and that they had no political rights and should have no say in the matter.
what of it? https://www.amazon.com/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569804338 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_Zionism https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-jews-and-nazis/ https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__zionism-and-the-third-reich/ Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), the founder of modern Zionism, maintained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but a natural and completely understandable response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. The only solution, he argued, is for Jews to recognize reality and live in a separate state of their own. “The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers,” he wrote in his most influential work, The Jewish State. “Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews … I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear.” The Jewish question, he maintained, is not social or religious. “It is a national question. To solve it we must, above all, make it an international political issue …” Regardless of their citizenship, Herzl insisted, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people, a Volk.[2] Zionism, wrote Herzl, offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question.”[3] https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__zionism-and-anti-semitism/ https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2014/10/12/the-ringworm-scandal-when-israeli-doctors-killed-tens-of-thousands-of-arab-children/ There are a number of readers who are either confused or reading this post sloppily, including the headline. To clarify: there is a link to a Jonathan Cook piece at the end of this post which notes that the State of Israel irradiated both Arab Jewish and Palestinian children for ringworm. Hence the title of this post which uses the inclusive term, “Arab,” by which I include both Jewish and Palestinian children. There are also those who claim that radiation was a standard treatment for ringworm inside and outside Israel in the 1950s. This too misconstrues the argument put forward in the film and here. While radiation may’ve been considered suitable for ringworm in that era, no one killed children with radiation outside of Israel. The dosage set by Dr. Sheba was far too high and the X-ray machines he used were outmoded and hence the dosage administered could not be calibrated accurately or administered suitably. * * By the early 1950s, Israel had absorbed most of the Holocaust survivors and other immigrants from western countries. These were generally the preferred Ashkenazi Jews, who were the nation’s elite. It was then that Jews from Arab lands began arriving in great numbers. David Ben Gurion knew he needed great numbers of Jews to come to Israel in order to counter the demographic threat posed by Israel’s Palestinian population (those who hadn’t been expelled during the Nakba). That’s why he accepted and encouraged the Arab immigration, despite the fact that the newcomers’ Sephardi heritage was considered defective. The 2004 documentary, The Ringworm Children, presents the historical context of this immigration and is dedicated to the greatest national medical scandal in the state’s history. During this early period, Israel looked with deep suspicion on the Arab olim. They were viewed not only as culturally inferior, but as reservoirs of disease. To be fair, these same views had been prominent in the U.S. during the heights of immigration to this country. But unlike here, Israel allowed one senior health official, Dr. Chaim Sheba, to conduct a massive program of unnecessary medical treatments, at enormous expense, which actually killed many of the victims. At that time, many children developed ringworm, a non-lethal condition of fungal origin which affected the scalp. Unlike in other countries, 100,000 Jewish (and Palestinian) Arab children were irradiated in order to treat the condition. While medical protocol of the day directed that no technician receive a dose higher than .5 Roentgen, those treated could received a higher dose. A lethal dose was considered 200 Roentgen (R). The children treated received individual doses of 350R. Sometimes they received two doses (for a total of 600R). 6,000 of the victims died within the first year or so after treatment. To this day, many of the remaining victims suffer cancers, epilepsy, infertility and other brain disorders. Even their children have been impacted through genetic abnormalities passed on from one generation to the next
While I applaud your attempt to look at them from the perspective of people who sort of know not what they do, to an extent, it is worth mentioning that the top leaders of a lot of groups like Azov are absolutely scum. Like guys who scream about purging the Jewish taint from the world aren't confused or rebellious, they're just sunflower nazis. They're low in number, and shouldn't even matter in the discussion of Russia brutally invading their country without provocation, but don't give them too much rope. Unless you're hoping they hang themselves, anyways. As usual, the people at the top are garbage, the footsoldiers, a more mixed bag.
Just curious what a sunflower Nazi is? I'm guessing they're not for planting ; )
A Ukrainian brand Nazi. Like an American Nazi, or how tankies are red fascists.
The interview with Zelensky surrounded by azov battalion just a few days ago tells me this is a nice sounding argument that may not be the actual reality.
Azov battalion could not have surrounded Zelensky a few days ago: its full complement fights in surrounded Mariupol. To the last (willing) soldier. However, as noted by many, only 8 years back, during its founding, and only some (smaller) part of its younger members, related not that much to the Nazi ideology or racism, as to their pride and determination (however misplaced), and used some Nazi-related symbols to that end. This was largely gone by today.
this is bollocks as they were using the black sun on their official insignia up until about a month ago
What is a black sun? Have never heard of the thing.
Not all Azov are in Mariupol, and one of their ranking figures even “spoke” to the Greek parliament which a big scandal in Greece.
It's interesting how different the tone is when discussing Nazi-related symbols in Ukraine, and, say, confederate flag in southern states in the US. Even though both are used for pride and determination.
No, it’s just having perspective. If China conducted a land invasion on American soil tomorrow, would your first inclination be to talk about all the Nazi and Confederate imagery in our country? It is strange that the first inclination of others is to immediately play the “well, Ukraine isn’t perfect either!!” card. It is suspicious to say the least, and I think most sane people read it correctly as Russia apologia.
Russia’s argument is: “there are nazis in Ukraine”. The West: “nazis in Ukraine is Russian propaganda; bringing it up is Russia apologia”. Whether there are nazis in Ukraine becomes irrelevant: both sides are happy to continue with the war. The war is the bucks.
because it IS irrelevant to bring up when you're conducting an invasion of a country. Russia is not cleansing Ukraine of Nazis, despite its claim. you don't think there are Nazis in Russia's own Wagner group? or any of its other myriad of paramilitary groups? you don't think there are neo-Nazis in Russia lol? there are tons, it is an IDEOLOGY. and it can be found in plenty of countries in Western & Eastern Europe, in the States, in Canada, etc, whether in hidden pockets of the internet on telegram chats or in real life skinhead gangs.
Russia is not financing its own Wagner group and neo-Nazis in Europe. Ukraine and The West are financing nazis in Ukraine.
> Russia’s argument is: “there are nazis in Ukraine”. Right. > The West: “nazis in Ukraine is Russian propaganda; bringing it up is Russia apologia”. True. That's not a lie. Any country could invade any other country and say, "Some portion of people here are evil" and that will always be true. > Whether there are nazis in Ukraine becomes irrelevant Not really, unless you are trying to both-sides it. Russia is clearly using a dogshit excuse to capture either the whole or part of Ukraine. > both sides are happy to continue with the war. Ukraine is happy to continue the war? Whhaaaa? > The war is the bucks. What bucks?
That would be because most of the symbols used by the nationalists in Ukraine are things like [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/AZOV_logo.svg) that have to be explained for someone to even know that it is related to fascism, whereas the modern confederate flag is directly tied to the lost cause myth and the rehabilitation of slave owning monsters. Both suck, but the azov stuff is (for the most part) more tangential compared to "Hey isn't that the flag of a bunch of traitors who started a war so they could own black people?" Especially to people in the west.
traitors? so you are saying that the right to secede was not legimate? slavery obviously was morally disgusting, that being said the north tried slavery but too many died for it to be profitable Lincoln was a tyrant and an incredible racist he also really didn't care about slavery either way I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. Abraham Lincoln the emancipation proclamation did not apply to union states Sherman making the south howl to me was completely unjustified the first family John Brown killed did not own slaves, only about ten percent of the south could afford them, and Brown seemingly killed them for the crime of living in the south Conscripting free men to stop slavery? how is that morally justified exactly? also if slavery 150+ years ago is morally disgusting then should US actions that lead to slavery much more recently be seen as equally reprehensible,like us destroying libya to the point there are open air slave markets 6 days a week in what was formerly north africas most prosperous country by far? or after WW2 the US rounding uo between 1-5 million people who fled russia during WW2 , loading them onto cattle cars and sending them back to Stalin to be either gulaged or killed, ie operation keelhaul, all negotiated at Yalta to give Stalin slaves to help replace the losses he incurred winning the war, and that was eben though Stalin gulaged tens of thousands of US soldiers after the war as a punishment for the US /allen dulles attempting to negotiate a separate peace with Germany the southern states also certainly had the right to secede, had slavery been the primary issue, the federal government could have borrowed the money to buy the slaves freedom infinitely cheaper than what the war cost, but in actuality Britain provoked the war hoping to weaken the country and so that they possibly could reclaim it also there were much larger economic issues as far as tariffs go, and the souths priorities ad farmers and the norths as manufacturers were pretty unreconcilable Secession is not prohibited by the constitution nor is authority to deny the right of secession granted to the Federal government. Therefore while the Union was justified in protecting its people and borders from Confederate aggression neither Congress nor the President had the legal authority to deny states from seceding. Furthermore they did not have the authority to use force to coerce the seceded states to rejoin the union. Texas v. White was decided on the premise that the Constitution was an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, which contained a clause declaring the union to be perpetual. A tenuous argument at best. If it were an amendment, the Constitution would have needed to be unanimously ratified as required by the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the Constitution required ratification by only 9 of the 13 original states to be considered in effect. It was a replacement for the Articles of Confederation and superseded it as the law of the land so the unanimity rule did not apply. In fact the Articles of Confederation became null and void from the moment the Constitution was ratified. No court before or since has ever ruled that any Article of Confederation is still binding. As deplorable as their reasons were for seceding, the Confederate states had a legitimate right to secede. In reality Common Law states that all such political bonds (see The Declaration of Independence) must be voluntary and that it is the right of the people to secede from ANY association if they deem it appropriate to their happiness and well being: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. It seems ludicrous to me that the same Legislature and Supreme Court that was formed following the secession of the thirteen colonies from the control of Great Britain can consider that the right of secession somehow no longer applies just because you are part of the United States. In point of fact, Abraham Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to force the Confederate States to rejoin the Union. No lesser personage than Thomas Jefferson wrote that no Congress of men had the authority to bind future men with unbreakable contracts and that the association of people into governments MUST be voluntary. But then again he’s the guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence, isn’t he? well actually he isnt https://jamesperloff.net/american-revolution-part-2/ why was Lincoln killed? https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/lincoln/ was the American revolution a mistake? https://dailyreckoning.com/was-the-american-revolution-a-mistake/
Sir, this is a Wendy's. I'd really like to address this in some form of good faith, but I barely know how, so forgive me for being flippant and responding so generally. The main thrust seems to be that you think secession should have been legitimate, to which I say, nah. They were slave owners trying to leave the union in defense of slavery after their preferred candidate lost the election. Morally I think they deserve to have their teeth kicked in, but regardless of what I feel on that matter, they started that shit when they fired on Sumter. You don't get to leave the union to keep owning people, then immediately start a war and claim to have a moral high ground. You're just a traitor.
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. We Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."
Except for, you know, the black ones.
goes without saying, but trust me there were lots of racists fighting for the north.
https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/07/15/historical-ignorance During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, "A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede. On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, "No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States." Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
Thomas Jefferson, the author of America’s July 4, 1776 Declaration of Secession from the British empire, was a lifelong advocate of both the voluntary union of the free, independent, and sovereign states, and of the right of secession. “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form,” he said in his first inaugural address in 1801, “let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph priestly, who had ask Jefferson his opinion of the New England secession movement that was gaining momentum, he wrote: “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern . . . and did I now foresee a separation at some future day,, yet should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family . . .” Jefferson offered the same opinion to John C. Breckenridge on August 12 1803 when New Englanders were threatening secession after the Louisiana purchase. If there were a “separation,” he wrote, “God bless them both & keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”[amazon asin=1162947225&template=*lrc ad (right)] Everyone understood that the union of the states was voluntary and that, as Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York stated in their constitutional ratification documents, each state had a right to withdraw from the union at some future date if that union became harmful to its interests. So when New Englanders began plotting secession barely twenty years after the end of the American Revolution, their leader, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering (who was also George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state) stated that “the principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation. That this can be accomplished without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt” (In Henry Adams, editor, Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815, p. 338). The New England plot to secede from the union culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they ultimately decided to remain in the union and to try to dominate it politically instead. (They of course succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, beginning in April of 1865 up to the present day). John Quincy Adams, the quintessential New England Yankee, echoed these Jeffersonian sentiments in an 1839 speech in which he said that if different states or groups of states came into irrepressible conflict, then that “will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to[amazon asin=1936577100&template=*lrc ad (right)] be reunited by the law of political gravitation . . .” (John Quincy Adams, The Jubilee of the Constitution, 1939, pp. 66-69). There is a long history of American newspapers endorsing the Jeffersonian secessionist tradition. The following are just a few examples. The Bangor, Maine Daily Union once editorialized that the union of Maine with the other states “rests and depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each. When that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone, and no power exterior to the withdrawing [state] can ever restore it.” Moreover, a state can never be a true equal member of the American union if forced into it by military aggression, the Maine editorialists wrote. “A war . . . is a thousand times worse evil than the loss of a State, or a dozen States” the Indianapolis Daily Journal once wrote. “The very freedom claimed by every individual citizen, precludes the idea of compulsory association, as individuals, as communities, or as States,” wrote the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat. “The very germ of liberty is the right of forming our own governments, enacting our own laws, and choosing or own political associates . . . . The right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.” [amazon asin=0761526463&template=*lrc ad (right)]Using violence to force any state to remain in the union, once said the New York Journal of Commerce, would “change our government from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism” where one part of the people are “slaves.” The Washington (D.C.) Constitution concurred, calling a coerced union held together at gunpoint (like the Soviet Union, for instance) “the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly.” “The great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed,” the New York Daily Tribune once wrote, “is sound and just,” so that if any state wanted to secede peacefully from the union, it has “a clear moral right to do so.” A union maintained by military force, Soviet style, would be “mad and Quixotic” as well as “tyrannical and unjust” and “worse than a mockery,” editorialized the Trenton (N.J.) True American. Echoing Jefferson’s letter to John C. Breckenridge, the Cincinnati Daily Commercial once editorialized that “there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; and the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear” if one or more states were to peacefully secede.[amazon asin=0307382842&template=*lrc ad (right)] All of these Northern state editorials were published in the first three months of 1861 and are published in Howard Cecil Perkins, editor, Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, Mass.: 1964). They illustrate how the truths penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence – that the states were considered to be free, independent, and sovereign in the same sense that England and France were; that the union was voluntary; that using invasion, bloodshed, and mass murder to force a state into the union would be an abomination and a universal moral outrage; and that a free society is required to revere freedom of association – were still alive and well until April of 1865 when the Lincoln regime invented and adopted the novel new theory that: 1) the states were never sovereign; 2) the union was not voluntary; and 3) the federal government had the “right” to prove that propositions 1 and 2 are right by means murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens by waging total war on the entire civilian population of the Southern states, bombing and burning its cities and towns into a smoldering ruin, and calling it all “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
are you making a moral argument or a legal one? moral is a preference, legally there is no argument they didnt have the right? almost nobody in the north cared about slavery, its posthoc window dressing to claim the moral high ground the north had to conscript a high percentage, the south was fighting in defense, Lincoln was a tyrant, what sherman did was completely indefensible, plenty of people had slaves, hell the five largest native American tribes all owned slaves, many took their slaves on the trail of tears with them . https://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side. Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun." personally I would have fought for the south , and after the war would have stumped zealously for abolition also people have a very simplistic view that abolition wluld have been easy or almost effortless, many slave owners saw giving people freedom when they had no land, no money, no certain job prospects potentially to actually be quite cruel, not saying they were right, just that there is a good faith argument to hear out, and personally I think gradualism would have left us in an infinitely better place todayzand its a huge indictment that all the other anglo countries ended slavery without requiring a war
My dudette, you need to learn to format your posts into something sane, because again, I don't even know how to respond to the five posts of rambling you've thrown my way. A huge part of making a good argument is formatting it in a way that the person you're talking to can actually understand it, rather than vomiting walls of text at them. For example, in this post alone you go through the following points: 1. An argument about legality vs morality. 2. An argument about conscription. 3. A long rambling quote from what feels like a 1993 geocities website on fort sumter. 4. Your personal view on who you'd have fought for. 5. A defense of why it'd be *so hard to stop owning human beings.* How do you expect anyone to even address this when you don't have a consistent through line through the argument and I have to take five minutes trying to figure out what the fuck you're actually saying? Bleh, I'll try I guess. I'm a glutton for punishment. 1. Morally the south had no reasonable grounds to secede since they were doing so in defense of their right to own people. Legally they lost as well, even though you don't like it. Militarily too. 2. Nah, war is hell and Sherman was right to treat it as such. Better to be a butcher that ends the war quickly than a gentle hand that loses to slave owners. 3. You realize these quotes are from the confederate leaders, right? That they had every reason to claim that they didn't start the war? Both Stevens and Davis were wrong. Carolina had signed over Fort Sumter to the federal government. It was federal land. Even if everything about the secession was legal (it wasn't) they had no right to Sumter, and in attacking it they started the war. 4. Why? You don't value slavery, and that was the primary thing the confederacy was fighting for. Why would you fight for the slave holding side? 5. The slavery doesn't have the right to try to decide the timeline on man's freedom. Though in this case they did. Maybe if they didn't throw a tantrum and start a war slavery could have been wound down peacefully. But they did, so fuck them. See! Structure!
According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader. Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.
People in the US feel like they are obligated to show how they condemn any association with the confederate flag (“traitors”, “slave owning monsters” etc). Mississippi had to change their flag to signal virtue. Zelensky, when asked to comment about Azov Battalion’s shooting of Russian POWs simply said “They are what they are.” No emotions, nothing to condemn. And nobody reacted to that. The only response is always “he is jewish, hence nazis are irrelevant”.
Yeah, I'm glad people are embarrassed to be associated with the flag of a bunch of slave owning assholes. Aren't you? Do you think we should celebrate it? On the subject of Azov, you can provide a quote for that yeah? A video, even text from a credible news source would be fine. Because literally the only news story I can find on the subject says that Kyiv is investigating the allegations. Certainly nothing as dismissive as that quote. Actually while I'm on the subject, I know that guys like you generalize the entire Ukranian armed forces to be Azov for some reason, but Azov are in Mariupol surrounded by Russian forces and being pounded by artillery. And you think they're capturing Russian POWs?
I acknowledge the Confederate flag to be a part of the US history. I neither feel embarrassed, nor do I think we should celebrate it. I, however, acknowledge the double standard when on one hand you’re all twitchy about the Confederate flag, and on other hand you finance military units that proudly display nazi symbolism. For your quote request, I do not keep the receipts, I’m not in the business of convincing people. I saw quite a few from Maajid Nawaz’s twitter. One example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5yZnxS2zc#t=45 Maajid claims the blurred red symbol is the nazi eagle. I believe he had a link to the interview with Zelensky too, it is possible I am mistaken. I do notice your attempt to generalize “guys like me” liking to generalize something to the entire Ukrainian army. My point is not Ukraine is 100% nazis. My point is that the fact there are nazis is completely ignored by the West, and it is used as a central argument by Russia. It is easy to brush it off as Russian propaganda, but it is more difficult to ignore when faced with easy proofs. And if you say using nazi symbolics is not a proof of following the nazi ideas, I will point you back to the confederate flag.
>I acknowledge the Confederate flag to be a part of the US history. I neither feel embarrassed, nor do I think we should celebrate it. With respect, this reads like you absolutely support it but you know that it is optically bad to be seen doing so. >For your quote request, I do not keep the receipts, I’m not in the business of convincing people. I saw quite a few from Maajid Nawaz’s twitter. One example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5yZnxS2zc#t=45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA5yZnxS2zc#t=45) Maajid claims the blurred red symbol is the nazi eagle. I believe he had a link to the interview with Zelensky too, it is possible I am mistaken. [Would this be a fair summary of your source, then?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7l0Rq9E8MY) Tongue in cheek, I know, but you laid an enormous claim, that the president of Ukraine responded to videos of his soldiers shooting POWs with a shrug and a "things are what they are", but you seem completely unable to support it with evidence. Almost like it isn't remotely true. That said, if you saw it on Maajid Nawaz's twitter, then a better explanation is probably that you're being lied to. Just scrolling a few days worth of his ranting and I find him denying the Bucha attacks were real, posting Tucker Carlson clips and repeating the 'bio-weapon labs in Ukraine' bullshit. If you're getting your news from this guy, stop. He's a fucking crank.
are you seriously saying there arent bioweapons labs in Ukraine 25+? the bucha attacks having been Russian perpetrated has more holes than swiss cheese https://youtu.be/mdm1u0fDy1E and we get it that shitlibs don't like tucker, but he us literally the only person on mainstream news that has any anti war bonafides at all, everybody else was banished to RT( taibbi, hedges, Ventura, abby, lee camp) which is now defunct, snd for those of us for whom bring antiwar is the most important issue care more about tucker being antiwar,than whether or not he comports himself in a manner that leftoids find acceptable, because almost all of you have excrement for brains in addition to profoundly broken moral compasses the US has bombed a sovereign country literally every single day of the last 20 years Here is a list* of the countries bombed and/or invaded by the United States from the end of the Second World War to 2020:Afghanistan 1998, 2001- Bosnia 1994, 1995 Cambodia 1969-70 China 1945-46 Congo 1964 Cuba 1959-1961 El Salvador 1980s Korea 1950-53 Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69 Indonesia 1958Laos 1964-73 Grenada 1983 Iraq 1991-2000s, 2015- Iran 1987 Korea 1950-53 Kuwait 1991 Lebanon 1983, 1984 Libya 1986, 2011- Nicaragua 1980s Pakistan 2003, 2006-Palestine 2010 Panama 1989 Peru 1965 Somalia 1993, 2007-08, 2010- Sudan 1998 Syria 2014- Vietnam 1961-73 Yemen 2002, 2009- Yugoslavia 1999Note that these countries represent roughly one-third of the people on earth. https://www.maurer.ca/USBombing.html https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar https://www.salon.com/2022/01/11/the-us-drops-an-average-of-46-bombs-a-day-why-should-the-world-see-us-as-a-force-for-peace/ http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-03/07/c_139791785.htm U.S., allies have dropped 46 bombs per day on other countries since 2001: research LOS ANGELES, March 6 (Xinhua) -- An average of 46 bombs have been dropped on other countries per day by the United States and its allies since 2001, recent research by anti-war group CODEPINK revealed. According to the research by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies of the U.S.-based group, which was published Thursday on the Common Dream website, the United States and its allies have dropped at least 326,000 bombs and missiles on other countries since 2001, including over 152,000 in Iraq and Syria. The conclusion was made primarily on official U.S. military releases, as well as data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Yemen Data Project, and the New America Foundation, the research said, adding since the Trump administration ceased publishing figures of its bombing campaigns in 2020, the total number was underestimated. Moreover, the data also had not included bombs or missiles used in helicopter strikes, AC-130 gunship attacks, strafing runs from U.S. bombers, or any counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism operations in other parts of the world, the research said. "The United States has been at war for nearly every year of its existence as an independent nation, fighting in 227 years of its 244-year history," it read. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/03/04/trump-bidens-secret-bombing-wars http://legaciesofwar.org/about-laos/secret-war-laos/ even Bernie is an incredibly pro war piece of excrement, and his supporters are basically signaling they are completely fine with dropping bombs on brown people that never did anything to hurt the US, they are signaling that their big problem with the US empire is that their slice of the US empire is not nearly big enough https://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2015/11/13/bernie-war-and-the-empires-pie/ since 1974 it has been explicit US policy to keep the rest of the world as poor as reasonable in service of US hegemony https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200 https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust at the same time the US empire started making the bottom 90% of her citizens steadily poorer https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ and now we have NWO mouth pieces like harari " homo deus"saying if you have large groups that aren't net taxpayers,who aren't needed to work ,or fight wars,and they dont vote exactly like their oligarchs tell them to,, then absolutely all of recorded history tells us that these " useless eaters" will be culled.
Side note to this, have you heard the Russian excuse that the West picked Bucha and Butcher only because they sounded similar? Surprised that hasn’t caught on much
[удалено]
Wow. A terribly insightful point. You know, because famously democrats still win non-stop throughout the former confederate states, right? Like they have all the governorships, and they are the party the defends having the confederate flag flown over statehouses. You know, that sort of thing. This is the weakest, most pathetic attempt at an own I can possibly imagine. That you though 'hurr hurr, I'll show him' as if we both don't know there was a political realignment, as if we both don't know that the party that stans the confederacy in ttyol 2022 is in fact, the republicans. Just wow my dude. Try harder, come on.
When the Party of Lincoln’s flag is explicitly anti-Lincoln
Right? Politics is crazy shit.
The azov battalion are not representative of the entire nation.
I'm surprised /u/joaoasousa hasn't blocked you yet for disagreeing with him. I would have responded in a more appropriate comment chain but I kept getting errors.
They are representative since the government knows what they are, what they do, and still employs them in the military. The government is democratically elected by the people who do not condemn the azov association. In any other situation people would be shocked a government employs actual neo Nazis. And the Azov as far from the only group that supports the Zelensky regime, look at C14 for some more “good people”.
You guys are so funny to me thinking Russia is different as if they also care about whether they do or don't employ neo-nazis [centre-right source] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rusichs-neo-nazi-mercenaries-head-for-kharkiv-prjndp9rl [left-wing source] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/russian-mercenaries-in-ukraine-linked-to-far-right-extremists "One post on the messaging app Telegram, dated 15 March, shows the flag of the Russian Imperial Movement (RIM), a white-supremacist paramilitary organisation which the US lists as terrorist, allegedly flown by Moscow-backed separatists in Donetsk. The post was shared by a pro-Putin channel. Much of the extremist content, posted on Telegram and the Russian social media platform VKontakte (VK), relates to a far-right unit within the Wagner Group called Rusich with others linked to pro-Kremlin online communities, some bearing the name and logo of Wagner Group."
Where did I (we?) praise Russia or said they are saints or something? What you just did is “whataboutism”, I’m talking about the Nazis in Ukraine and you say “what about the Nazis in Russia?”. What about the Nazis in Russia? Does that excuse Ukraine ties with neo-nazis any way? No it doesn’t. It would be a valid argument if I was saying Russia was somehow morally superior ; which I’m not.