If WW3 were to break out what would it matter where the Tatars were at the time? WW3 clearly wouldn't have been fought against nazis.
Also they could have moved them back after Stalin's death, or did Khruschev's revisionism infect literally the entire Soviet Union instantly after gaining power? What was that about collective leadership again?
If WW3 were to break out what would it matter where the Tatars were at the time? WW3 clearly wouldn’t have been fought against nazis.
No it would've been fought by the Anglo-American empire that rehabiliated Nazis and put them as heads of NATO, EU and even put Reinhard Gehlen in charge of the Gehlen Organisation who was a former werhmacht Major General and head of Nazi Intelligence.
World War 3 would've been fought by the Anglo-American empire using Nazi's and Nazi collaborators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlen_Organization
The CIA and MI6 were parachuting Banderites (OUN/UPA holocaust collaborators) into Ukraine as late as 1954
Between 1949 and 1954, a total of seventy-five ZCh OUN and ZP UHVR agents were parachuted into Ukraine. With Czech wartime pilots at the controls, the planes evaded Soviet radar screens by flying at 200 feet (61 meters) across the Soviet border and climbing at the last moment to 500 feet (152 meters), the minimum height for a safe parachute drop. In May 1952, one group was sent by submarine. In 1953 two groups used hot-air balloons that lifted from British and West German ships close to the Polish coast. Other groups tried to reach Ukraine on foot. Ukrainian MI6 and CIA agents did not realize that very few of their missions could meet with success, because of infiltration by Soviet intelligence.
The American and British intelligence services were already taking an interest in Nazis and Nazi collaborators, before the end of the war. They were also interested in people and organizations, such as the German Military Intelligence on the Eastern Front (Fremde Heere Ost, FHO), and the various Eastern European far-right movements, including the OUN, who could provide them with information about the Soviet Union or who possessed other valuable knowledge. With the help of the CIA, Reinhard Gehlen, former head of the FHO, established the Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND), the intelligence service of West Germany. American intelligence protected Gehlen and his advisers.[1578]
And
Bandera had met with officials of the British Secret Intelligence Service (known as MI6), in the British zone at the end of the war. MI6 regarded Bandera as potentially useful for Cold War purposes, and therefore decided to help him.[1583] The American Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) in Munich also protected Bandera from Soviet intelligence, although it was more interested in cooperation with the UHVR, which began to compete with the ZCh OUN after the war. The CIC concluded that Bandera’s extradition would “imply to the Ukrainians that we as an organization are unable to protect them, i.e., we have no authority.
..
Also they could have moved them back after Stalin’s death
You asked about Stalin and I'm telling you the justification for not moving them back until 1953 (Stalin's death) and 1956 (when Ww2 was still expected to break out)
did Khruschev’s revisionism infect literally the entire Soviet Union instantly after gaining power?
It should tell you something that nothing was done until Gorbachevs pererstroika. That nothing formal was done until 1989. Ie. when they pulled down the red flag and let the country explode into nationalist-ethnic violence throughout the entire eastern bloc. Where Soviet brothers shoot at each other decades later in Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Ukraine etc
You’re really fucking reaching here, is any of this reasoning actually documented anywhere in the Soviet archives or official party correspondence or are you just pulling theories out your ass?
Why would the Soviets do it? If we take your bourgeois view of history to it's logical conclusion then there was no fear of Crimea Tatar collaboration despite them setting up their own Waffen SS groups with the Nazis
Ah, right, so it was collective leadership under Stalin and then it was an overnight sudden switch to revisionist incompetence.
You mistake what I'm saying. In my view it was correct to not allow them back until at least 1956. Cuban missile crisis was 1962 so can't really believe they should've gone back then either.
If the only Soviet Leader that thought it was a good idea to let them back was Gorby in 1989 I'd probably argue it wasn't a good idea then either.
You’re just doing blind apologetics under the guise of being super very informed by randomly quoting marginally related stuff.
you might want to look at a map of Ukraine to understand what i'm saying. The Anglo-American empire was parachuting Ukrainian nazis into Ukraine as late 1954. Crimea was right next to Ukraine (and did become part of Ukraine under Krushchev). You think Western intelligence wouldn't see out the same people who formed SS groups amongst the Crimean Tatars?
I'm just saying I assume the Soviet leadership (both Stalin and post Stalin) and Soviet intelligence knew more than you or I do
Maybe consider that you’re too far gone if you support shit like ethnic cleansing a
Categorically reject they were ethnically cleansed. They were moved like a lot of people during world war 2 in Soviet Union and they were given better lands. The question was weather they should've been moved back at any point between 1956-1989 and were it not for the threat of imperialism they would've been
Because, like you said, the Soviets weren't a hive mind led by a communist Borg queen. Russian nationalism was a real political force in the Soviet Union which, while its influence is vastly overstated in western historiography, was never properly stamped out by either Lenin or Stalin.
This led to some fucked up shit like the forced deportation of the Tatars, or at least was responsible for them not being allowed to come back.
Pretending like it was ackcskcshly a very advanced 9D historical materialist calculation done by the Party is just ridiculous, sorry.
Also you still never really responded to being dunked on for lysenkoism.
This led to some fucked up shit like the forced deportation of the Tatars, or at least was responsible for them not being allowed to come back.
Here's Grover Furrs view and tbh I stick by it
-Collaboration among Tatars was massive
-By 1944 20,000 had joined the Nazis to fight the Soviets out of a population of 218,000 (take out women, old people and under 18s and this is massive portion of the 18-65 population)
-Trying to isolate the guilty would've been to split the Tatar nation
-Deportation kept this nation intact keeping their culture/language/peoples alive
-If they'd actually just shot the collaborators this would probably have destroyed the tatar nation by removing most of the men
-Their population grew by mid 1950s
-when they were able to return most of them didn't want to as they were well established
Stop fucking deflecting, they could have moved them back at many points after the war. The claim that it was because of fear of new war is flimsy and backed by nothing other than your guesswork.
they could have moved them back at many points after the war.
And I'd have disagreed with allowing them back at any point tbh and the eventual Ukraine-Russia war is proof the West never would stop utilising the most reactionary elements to force war on Russia
The claim that it was because of fear of new war is flimsy
Yes because Ukraine was never considered the "soft belly" underneath Russia and the West never supported Nazis in Ukraine which may explode into world war 3 as we currently speak.
Either there was a threat of world war 3 or their wasn't and I provided you a book with numerous Anglo politicians/military thinking 1956 Hungary would turn into ww3 with the Cuban missile crisis 6 years later
in 1951 to the leadership of the OUN in Ukraine, he argued that the Western countries were preparing themselves for a war against the Soviet Union and needed two more years to produce enough weapons to begin one.[1711]
In 1958 Bandera still claimed that “The Third World War would shake up the whole structure of world powers even more than the last two wars.”[1713]
Yes. The Gehlen Organisation ran by a literal Nazi supported by the CIA wasn't tasked with gathering up all the far right (read Nazis) during the Cold War. Anglos weren't parachuting Nazis into Ukraine as late as 1954
Anglo intelligence definitely wouldn't have approached former nazi collaborators amongst the Tatar nation
Bullshit. Why didn't they deport all or most of Ukrainians then after the war?
Either there was a threat of world war 3 or their wasn’t and I provided you a book with numerous Anglo politicians/military thinking 1956 Hungary would turn into ww3 with the Cuban missile crisis 6 years later
Didn't say there wasn't, I'm saying it's wasn't a good rationale for keeping Tatars from their lands. I don't even think it was their rationale, it's something you made up to make it seem like it wasn't an actual atrocity.
Why is it so hard to admit that nationalism might have played a part in it. It's not like it would be this huge precedent in the history of communist parties that one would be infiltrated by nationalists to some extent.
I dispute even the word deportation tbh. It was an evacuation in my view.
This twist of language is typical of all contentious issues outside the Anglo-Euro sphere. Like when they call Tinanamen Square a massacre instead of a violent liberal colour revolution of ShitLibs murdering unarmed Chinese soldiers. Or when people call the "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact an alliance.
most of Ukrainians then after the war?
The evacuation occured under conditions of a World War. Why would Soviets deport Ukrainians after the war when the Communists had hegemony amongst the Ukrainian Nation and the Banderites were literally called "German-Ukrainian Nationalists" in popular culture
I’m saying it’s wasn’t a good rationale for keeping Tatars from their lands.
I think it was.
it’s something you made up to make it seem like it wasn’t an actual atrocity.
An atrocity is definitely when you evacuate a population to even more fertile land and instead of shooting the nazi collaborators they just got deported and kept their lives and the Tatar nation allowed to grow because of that mercy.
If they'd deported or shot just the collaborators it would've destroyed the Tatar nation by removing most of the family aged men (18-40)
And when they're offered the lands back the majority don't even want to go.
This is a contentious issue, I get it but a joke to call it an atrocity
Why is it so hard to admit that nationalism might have played a part in it.
The Soviet decision allowed the Tatar nation to continue existing and growing. They've could've done what the Anglo nations do to their oppressed nations and funnelled them onto Reserves where they spend all day drinking alcohol or huffing gas, the suicide rate goes through the roof and the birth rate plummets in a deliberate attempt to exterminate those nations.
Or they could've shot the Nazi collaborators (completely justified) and wiped out the Tatar nation within a 1 or 2 generatiosn
The Soviet decision (under geopolitical and national security concerns) seems to be a sincere attempt to keep the Tatar nation intact.
First by being pretty generous enough not to shoot nazi collaborators and second not splitting up the Tatar nation again with a right of return say in 1965 which may have split the Tatars in half. (say half decide to go and half to stay out of a population of 218k)
Again, when they were offered full right of return the majority stayed where they were.
The Soviet decision (under geopolitical and national security concerns) seems to be a sincere attempt to keep the Tatar nation intact.
You think the Tatars saw it that way? Are there any documented testimonies from any of them?
First by being pretty generous enough not to shoot nazi collaborators and second not splitting up the Tatar nation again with a right of return say in 1965 which may have split the Tatars in half. (say half decide to go and half to stay out of a population of 218k)
Ah so now they did it for their own good because they're dum dums and would have split themselves into irrelevance otherwise. Fuck off, I'm done with this discussion.
Again, when they were offered full right of return the majority stayed where they were.
Yeah because 50 years passed genius, there was not much to come back to.
You think the Tatars saw it that way? Are there any documented testimonies from any of them?
I honestly don't really care about how they saw it. When such a significant amount actively fought the Soviets alongside nazis. A decision was made in the exigencies of 1944 and I'd probably vote for that decision in that time
Ah so now they did it for their own good because they’re dum dums and would have split themselves into irrelevance otherwise
I was only entertaining the possibility of allowing return post 1965. It's not even something I'd agree with
. Fuck off, I’m done with this discussion.
Sure if discussing hotbutton and squeamish issues affects you this much. But be sure every Socialist nation will have to make these kinds of controversial decisions during the period of Imperialism and capitalist encirclement.
You said this was a "mistake" of Stalin. I just don't agree
Yeah because 50 years passed genius, there was not much to come back to.
Chagos Islanders were deported in the 1960s and 70s by the British and Americans and they still regularly demand their land back.
That nation was completely obliterated. Most having killed themselves or "died of sadness" (ie. just became despondent after being dumped in other countries) and still protesting and trying to get their land back.
If 50 years later the Tatars as a majority dont want to move back this is only a testament to the delicate handling of the National question of the Tatar nation by Soviet leadership (both Stalin and post-stalin)
Those are some pretty wild mental gymnastics.
If WW3 were to break out what would it matter where the Tatars were at the time? WW3 clearly wouldn't have been fought against nazis.
Also they could have moved them back after Stalin's death, or did Khruschev's revisionism infect literally the entire Soviet Union instantly after gaining power? What was that about collective leadership again?
No it would've been fought by the Anglo-American empire that rehabiliated Nazis and put them as heads of NATO, EU and even put Reinhard Gehlen in charge of the Gehlen Organisation who was a former werhmacht Major General and head of Nazi Intelligence.
World War 3 would've been fought by the Anglo-American empire using Nazi's and Nazi collaborators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlen_Organization
The CIA and MI6 were parachuting Banderites (OUN/UPA holocaust collaborators) into Ukraine as late as 1954
Stepan Bandera The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist
Training them
And
..
You asked about Stalin and I'm telling you the justification for not moving them back until 1953 (Stalin's death) and 1956 (when Ww2 was still expected to break out)
It should tell you something that nothing was done until Gorbachevs pererstroika. That nothing formal was done until 1989. Ie. when they pulled down the red flag and let the country explode into nationalist-ethnic violence throughout the entire eastern bloc. Where Soviet brothers shoot at each other decades later in Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Ukraine etc
Removed by mod
Why would the Soviets do it? If we take your bourgeois view of history to it's logical conclusion then there was no fear of Crimea Tatar collaboration despite them setting up their own Waffen SS groups with the Nazis
https://www.axishistory.com/list-all-categories/121-germany-waffen-ss/germany-waffen-ss-regiments/1378-tataren-gebirgsjaeger-regiment-der-ss
You mistake what I'm saying. In my view it was correct to not allow them back until at least 1956. Cuban missile crisis was 1962 so can't really believe they should've gone back then either.
If the only Soviet Leader that thought it was a good idea to let them back was Gorby in 1989 I'd probably argue it wasn't a good idea then either.
you might want to look at a map of Ukraine to understand what i'm saying. The Anglo-American empire was parachuting Ukrainian nazis into Ukraine as late 1954. Crimea was right next to Ukraine (and did become part of Ukraine under Krushchev). You think Western intelligence wouldn't see out the same people who formed SS groups amongst the Crimean Tatars?
I'm just saying I assume the Soviet leadership (both Stalin and post Stalin) and Soviet intelligence knew more than you or I do
Categorically reject they were ethnically cleansed. They were moved like a lot of people during world war 2 in Soviet Union and they were given better lands. The question was weather they should've been moved back at any point between 1956-1989 and were it not for the threat of imperialism they would've been
Because, like you said, the Soviets weren't a hive mind led by a communist Borg queen. Russian nationalism was a real political force in the Soviet Union which, while its influence is vastly overstated in western historiography, was never properly stamped out by either Lenin or Stalin.
This led to some fucked up shit like the forced deportation of the Tatars, or at least was responsible for them not being allowed to come back.
Pretending like it was ackcskcshly a very advanced 9D historical materialist calculation done by the Party is just ridiculous, sorry.
Also you still never really responded to being dunked on for lysenkoism.
Here's Grover Furrs view and tbh I stick by it
-Collaboration among Tatars was massive
-By 1944 20,000 had joined the Nazis to fight the Soviets out of a population of 218,000 (take out women, old people and under 18s and this is massive portion of the 18-65 population)
-Trying to isolate the guilty would've been to split the Tatar nation
-Deportation kept this nation intact keeping their culture/language/peoples alive
-If they'd actually just shot the collaborators this would probably have destroyed the tatar nation by removing most of the men
-Their population grew by mid 1950s
-when they were able to return most of them didn't want to as they were well established
Grover Furr, Krushchev Lied, p107,108 https://archive.org/details/pdfy-nmIGAXUrq0OJ87zK
This is the great "mistakes" of Stalin
Uyghur genocide hours. 🥱
Tbh I need to read more on Lysenko and you've motivated me to do so
Stop fucking deflecting, they could have moved them back at many points after the war. The claim that it was because of fear of new war is flimsy and backed by nothing other than your guesswork.
And I'd have disagreed with allowing them back at any point tbh and the eventual Ukraine-Russia war is proof the West never would stop utilising the most reactionary elements to force war on Russia
Yes because Ukraine was never considered the "soft belly" underneath Russia and the West never supported Nazis in Ukraine which may explode into world war 3 as we currently speak.
Either there was a threat of world war 3 or their wasn't and I provided you a book with numerous Anglo politicians/military thinking 1956 Hungary would turn into ww3 with the Cuban missile crisis 6 years later
Stepan Bandera The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist, p300
Yes. The Gehlen Organisation ran by a literal Nazi supported by the CIA wasn't tasked with gathering up all the far right (read Nazis) during the Cold War. Anglos weren't parachuting Nazis into Ukraine as late as 1954
Anglo intelligence definitely wouldn't have approached former nazi collaborators amongst the Tatar nation
Bullshit. Why didn't they deport all or most of Ukrainians then after the war?
Didn't say there wasn't, I'm saying it's wasn't a good rationale for keeping Tatars from their lands. I don't even think it was their rationale, it's something you made up to make it seem like it wasn't an actual atrocity.
Why is it so hard to admit that nationalism might have played a part in it. It's not like it would be this huge precedent in the history of communist parties that one would be infiltrated by nationalists to some extent.
I dispute even the word deportation tbh. It was an evacuation in my view.
This twist of language is typical of all contentious issues outside the Anglo-Euro sphere. Like when they call Tinanamen Square a massacre instead of a violent liberal colour revolution of ShitLibs murdering unarmed Chinese soldiers. Or when people call the "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact an alliance.
The evacuation occured under conditions of a World War. Why would Soviets deport Ukrainians after the war when the Communists had hegemony amongst the Ukrainian Nation and the Banderites were literally called "German-Ukrainian Nationalists" in popular culture
I think it was.
An atrocity is definitely when you evacuate a population to even more fertile land and instead of shooting the nazi collaborators they just got deported and kept their lives and the Tatar nation allowed to grow because of that mercy.
If they'd deported or shot just the collaborators it would've destroyed the Tatar nation by removing most of the family aged men (18-40)
And when they're offered the lands back the majority don't even want to go.
This is a contentious issue, I get it but a joke to call it an atrocity
The Soviet decision allowed the Tatar nation to continue existing and growing. They've could've done what the Anglo nations do to their oppressed nations and funnelled them onto Reserves where they spend all day drinking alcohol or huffing gas, the suicide rate goes through the roof and the birth rate plummets in a deliberate attempt to exterminate those nations.
Or they could've shot the Nazi collaborators (completely justified) and wiped out the Tatar nation within a 1 or 2 generatiosn
The Soviet decision (under geopolitical and national security concerns) seems to be a sincere attempt to keep the Tatar nation intact.
First by being pretty generous enough not to shoot nazi collaborators and second not splitting up the Tatar nation again with a right of return say in 1965 which may have split the Tatars in half. (say half decide to go and half to stay out of a population of 218k)
Again, when they were offered full right of return the majority stayed where they were.
You think the Tatars saw it that way? Are there any documented testimonies from any of them?
Ah so now they did it for their own good because they're dum dums and would have split themselves into irrelevance otherwise. Fuck off, I'm done with this discussion.
Yeah because 50 years passed genius, there was not much to come back to.
I honestly don't really care about how they saw it. When such a significant amount actively fought the Soviets alongside nazis. A decision was made in the exigencies of 1944 and I'd probably vote for that decision in that time
I was only entertaining the possibility of allowing return post 1965. It's not even something I'd agree with
Sure if discussing hotbutton and squeamish issues affects you this much. But be sure every Socialist nation will have to make these kinds of controversial decisions during the period of Imperialism and capitalist encirclement.
You said this was a "mistake" of Stalin. I just don't agree
Chagos Islanders were deported in the 1960s and 70s by the British and Americans and they still regularly demand their land back.
That nation was completely obliterated. Most having killed themselves or "died of sadness" (ie. just became despondent after being dumped in other countries) and still protesting and trying to get their land back.
If 50 years later the Tatars as a majority dont want to move back this is only a testament to the delicate handling of the National question of the Tatar nation by Soviet leadership (both Stalin and post-stalin)