Okay. Even so, I think the, "it's obvious; everything in and post-WWII can be 100% boiled down to fascism and its opponents," kind of implication from the OP isn't useful or wise to try to make.
It would be better to provide some easily-consumable evidence for the target audience rather than just telling them, "Well duh!" And even granted that tweets are an extremely limited medium, I think it wouldn't be a much higher burden than doing what the OP did.
Hexbear Post: "Look at these fucking Nazis doing Nazis shit"
Liberal: "Hey now. Let's not go calling everyone a Nazi."
Guy Hexbear Poster is Posting About:
The guerrilla operations in Estonia and Latvia had some basis in Adolf Hitler's authorization of a full withdrawal from Estonia in mid-September 1944 – he allowed any soldiers of his Estonian forces, primarily the 20th Waffen-SS Division (1st Estonian), who wished to stay and defend their homes to do so – and in the fate of Army Group Courland, among the last of Hitler's forces to surrender after it became trapped in the Courland Pocket on the Courland Peninsula in 1945. Many Estonian and Latvian soldiers, and a few Germans, evaded capture and fought as Forest Brothers in the countryside for years after the war. Others, such as Alfons Rebane and Alfrēds Riekstiņš escaped to the United Kingdom and Sweden and participated in Allied intelligence operations in aid of the Forest Brothers.
Yes, a strawman. Literally nobody argued the Forest Brothers weren't fascist. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between arguing against a thing and criticizing the validity and/or presentation of an argument for that thing.
Anyway, no point continuing to converse with you. Good luck with that whole bad faith participation and unwillingness to actually listen to and understand the people you're talking with thing. I'm sure it'll serve you well.
Firstly we can and should do that. secondly no one was even equating all resistance or whatever, literally this was about the Forest Brothers who it is maybe not that great of an idea to defend. Idk about you but I find Lebensraum to be a BAD thing. These are actual fucking Nazis you are "umm ackutally"ing
I'm not defending anyone; I'm simply criticizing the "Quick, which side was fighting the Soviets in WWII" response to "fought the Soviet army for their homelands after WWII". At worst that makes the implication I described. At best it requires pretty specific knowledge to make it something other than the implication I described. This is not the way to counter disinformation.
A group fighting the soviets in the year 1946 should be treated as Nazis, that doesn't require "pretty specific knowledge". You counter disinfo by saying "hey so if they are opposed to the Soviets in 1946, who would their allies be?" No antifascist should be opposed to the implication you described, convincing people who are going to inherently support or sympathize with the Forest Brothers or other anti-soviet groups in the late 40s are not worth winning over nicely. NATO is celebrating literal nazis, we are gonna call them literal nazis. The "strategizing" to convince people do not be as pro-nazi by softening our blows shit is not something you are gonna get communists to go along with.
That's quite a strawman. Show people they are actual Nazis (I'm not saying they weren't, but that you aren't doing an adequate job of educating people who would be susceptible to NATO's propaganda here), rather than assuming they should just know. No, people opposing the occupation of their communities by foreign soldiers does not inherently make them Nazis. Not under ANY circumstances. Sorry. That is an absolute bullshit argument.
I'm going to make this my last contribution to this exchange. You're doing the same kind of disingenuous bullshit painting of me I get from people when I myself criticize NATO on Reddit (some jackass even called me a liberal here). I'm pretty sure we're supposed to assume good faith here, and this conversation obviously is not going to continue on that basis, so goodbye.
My dad gets all sorts of secondhand bloodlust from hearing about Ukrainians "defending their homeland," and you are right - he will never be convinced by this argument. When he was growing up, the cold war was already underway and communists were already seen as the "bad guys" who wanted to invade the nation. If you asked your average boomer who won WWII and who they were allied with, they'd likely say America and then list off the whitest European countries they can remember off the top of their heads.
We are fighting against decades of propaganda. Of course people on here associate anti-communism with fascism - we know what fascism actually is. To most Americans, however, it just means any authoritarian regime that they don't like. It will take more to crack through the propagandized brain than a snappy Twitter clapback.
nothing on twitter will break through the propaganda. the point of calling them nazis on twitter is because NATO are nazis glorifying nazis. No one who follows NATO on twitter is going to be swayed by some informative tweet. Pointing out that people who kept fighting after WW2 ended against the soviets, are thus fighting on the same side as a certain other power is a pretty fair response. Engaging with NATO propaganda in good faith is pointless on twitter
They called you a liberal cause you are one. The forest brothers are inherently nazis, they fought against the soviets and for the nazis in WW2, and that needs to be the response to any praise of them instead of some liberal ass caveats.
Call me disingenuous, but at least I dont concern myself with sugar coating fascist guerillas
I'm not sure trying to equate all resistance to Soviet occupation post-WWII to fascism is that great of an idea.
Anti-communism is and has always been fascism
Yeah no these were Nazi collaborators 99%
Top response https://twitter.com/Gacoli/status/1505685506448842752
Okay. Even so, I think the, "it's obvious; everything in and post-WWII can be 100% boiled down to fascism and its opponents," kind of implication from the OP isn't useful or wise to try to make.
It would be better to provide some easily-consumable evidence for the target audience rather than just telling them, "Well duh!" And even granted that tweets are an extremely limited medium, I think it wouldn't be a much higher burden than doing what the OP did.
Hexbear Post: "Look at these fucking Nazis doing Nazis shit"
Liberal: "Hey now. Let's not go calling everyone a Nazi."
Guy Hexbear Poster is Posting About:
Okay. I believe you. But my point...well, just described here.
(And anarchist, not liberal.)
:expert-shapiro:
Liberal.
deleted by creator
It's anarcholiberalism
OK :reddit-logo:or.
Yes, a strawman. Literally nobody argued the Forest Brothers weren't fascist. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between arguing against a thing and criticizing the validity and/or presentation of an argument for that thing.
Anyway, no point continuing to converse with you. Good luck with that whole bad faith participation and unwillingness to actually listen to and understand the people you're talking with thing. I'm sure it'll serve you well.
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
take the hint that a good faith discussion of how to not come out too strongly against the forest brothers is NOT gonna happen here
Firstly we can and should do that. secondly no one was even equating all resistance or whatever, literally this was about the Forest Brothers who it is maybe not that great of an idea to defend. Idk about you but I find Lebensraum to be a BAD thing. These are actual fucking Nazis you are "umm ackutally"ing
I'm not defending anyone; I'm simply criticizing the "Quick, which side was fighting the Soviets in WWII" response to "fought the Soviet army for their homelands after WWII". At worst that makes the implication I described. At best it requires pretty specific knowledge to make it something other than the implication I described. This is not the way to counter disinformation.
A group fighting the soviets in the year 1946 should be treated as Nazis, that doesn't require "pretty specific knowledge". You counter disinfo by saying "hey so if they are opposed to the Soviets in 1946, who would their allies be?" No antifascist should be opposed to the implication you described, convincing people who are going to inherently support or sympathize with the Forest Brothers or other anti-soviet groups in the late 40s are not worth winning over nicely. NATO is celebrating literal nazis, we are gonna call them literal nazis. The "strategizing" to convince people do not be as pro-nazi by softening our blows shit is not something you are gonna get communists to go along with.
That's quite a strawman. Show people they are actual Nazis (I'm not saying they weren't, but that you aren't doing an adequate job of educating people who would be susceptible to NATO's propaganda here), rather than assuming they should just know. No, people opposing the occupation of their communities by foreign soldiers does not inherently make them Nazis. Not under ANY circumstances. Sorry. That is an absolute bullshit argument.
I'm going to make this my last contribution to this exchange. You're doing the same kind of disingenuous bullshit painting of me I get from people when I myself criticize NATO on Reddit (some jackass even called me a liberal here). I'm pretty sure we're supposed to assume good faith here, and this conversation obviously is not going to continue on that basis, so goodbye.
My dad gets all sorts of secondhand bloodlust from hearing about Ukrainians "defending their homeland," and you are right - he will never be convinced by this argument. When he was growing up, the cold war was already underway and communists were already seen as the "bad guys" who wanted to invade the nation. If you asked your average boomer who won WWII and who they were allied with, they'd likely say America and then list off the whitest European countries they can remember off the top of their heads.
We are fighting against decades of propaganda. Of course people on here associate anti-communism with fascism - we know what fascism actually is. To most Americans, however, it just means any authoritarian regime that they don't like. It will take more to crack through the propagandized brain than a snappy Twitter clapback.
nothing on twitter will break through the propaganda. the point of calling them nazis on twitter is because NATO are nazis glorifying nazis. No one who follows NATO on twitter is going to be swayed by some informative tweet. Pointing out that people who kept fighting after WW2 ended against the soviets, are thus fighting on the same side as a certain other power is a pretty fair response. Engaging with NATO propaganda in good faith is pointless on twitter
They called you a liberal cause you are one. The forest brothers are inherently nazis, they fought against the soviets and for the nazis in WW2, and that needs to be the response to any praise of them instead of some liberal ass caveats.
Call me disingenuous, but at least I dont concern myself with sugar coating fascist guerillas
deleted by creator