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
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