Ah yes how could I forget a war that the US only joined years late and well after millions of people had already died. A war where the US setup their own concentration camps for Japanese Americans. A war where the US used nuclear bombs to obliterate civilians in an unprecedented way. SURELY that war the US was definitely the good guys there.
And then Ukraine, a war where the US is giving unlimited guns to literal Nazis and shoving civilians into an endless and completely unnecessary meat grinder. Yeah definitely the objective good guys in that conflict. Also the US was largely at fault for the conflict in the first place so even if they were objectively the good guys here it would be them cleaning up their mess. They aren't though they're making it worse.
If you really can't keep track of conversations in your head at least look at the context of each comment you reply to so you don't look like a stupid wall people are talking to
There are a few literal Nazis on both sides. Ukraine doesn't have any in the government or high command apparatus
Zelensky thanked and did a photo shoot with the Nazi Andriy Biletsky (leader of the Azov Battalion, said his goal is to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen”); Zelensky also wears and advertises Nazi merchandise [1] [2]. And Ukrainian parliament and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine openly celebrate Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (he has monuments all over Ukraine). So your claims of no Nazis in govt or high command are completely incorrect.
“Nazis on both sides” is nonsense, and before the war demanded every western source to support Ukraine, the Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine was widely publicized and documented [1] [2] [3] [4]. Clearly the US realized how many Nazis there were in Ukraine to the extent that they lifted regulations on congressional funding of Neo Nazis when supporting Ukraine. Maybe before giving up it’s sovereignty Ukraine can try to remove its monuments to Nazi collaborators, purge Nazis from office, and stop being a U.S. vassal state.
Oh sorry, I thought you meant that there were no Nazis in Russian power when you said 'nazis on both sides' was nonsense. So your saying Nazis are in higher places of power in Ukraine than Russia?
Damn can you for a second think about systematic versus individual arguments? Nobody thinks there are no Nazi's with power in Russia (though the biggest ones were recently killed). It's about how those ideologies function in Russian and Ukrainian socio/political-economic situation.
In Russia, they are systematically oppressed, with many far right figures calling Putin jewish-supporting and anti-right wing for the way that their organizations are systematically kept down. There were celebrations of collaborators after the 90's that have consistently been stopped by police and people arrested for long times for partaking in recent decades.
Meanwhile, regardless of INDIVIDUAL Nazi's (which on this front is still many more, but I don't really care about that), Ukraine is incorporating the ideological functions of, and avoiding any critique of, the Nazi collaboration supporters. More people are picking up the symbols of Nazism, people are using the language and ideological underpinnings of Nazism to discuss Russians in orientalist and anti-Semitism-influenced language about how lesser and Asian they are.
In one country, such talk is dying off as it's oppressed away and in the other it's growing and becoming only more popular.
They were being used as cannon fodder with the intent to destroy them, and their leadership was assassinated by Putin. Doesn't exactly seem like Russia is a fan of them
The comment was saying that it's bogus that there are Nazis on both sides. I asked if the Wagner Nazis were Russian. It directly relates to the claims.
Ukraine also has may 9th, Victory Day over Nazism in World War II. Are you taking about defender's day? I didn't find any holidays that fit your description.
I'm not the only one getting tired of you speaking as if with authority and needing to be taught fundamental aspects of the topics you're talking about.
Is Wagner a Nazi paramilitary, or a penal legion? One day I hear they are a bunch of ideological soldiers just like Azov, next I hear that it's full of Russian prisoners trying to shorten their sentences.
Poll by Rating, a Ukrainian research institute, shows positive opinions of Stepan Bandera (Jew exterminating Nazi) soaring from 22 per cent in 2012 to 74 per cent in April 2022. (post maidan revolution in 2014)
Those opinions are stronger the further you get away from Russia. They are weaker in Crimea and Donbass.
The left wing parties in Ukraine have been banned.
Russia isn't trying to absorb Ukraine. They would absolutely broker a deal to take back Crimea and Donbass and leave the rest. A significant number in those places are ethnically russian (it's the largest ethnicity proportion in the area ~ 39%) and a higher proportion than just ethnic Russians are open to becoming part of Russia (~49%)
Holy shit I didn’t know that that Utkin piece of shit was on that plane. He was the only guy liberals could come up with when they were saying that Nazis were also in Russia too (although he had not been seen in public since 2016). Once again I must express my critical support for Putin, especially when he’s mercing Nazis. Odd that liberals haven’t praised Putin for doing this, since I thought they hated Nazis?
Favored by Putin and given special latitude. You aren't going to start a pmc without serious political capital, plus Putin had been commissioning them for a long time.
And the strength of these connections is why hiring and then killing off a mercenary makes the Russian government the nature of being nazis in the same way Ukraine having actual nazi politicians in charge does?
Why do you argue so fucking far past the point it's obvious you're wrong? You're an entire branching comment tree in this post. You never give up on a single point but you're getting bodied left and right.
Why do you argue so fucking far past the point it's obvious you're wrong? You're an entire branching comment tree in this post. You never give up on a single point but you're getting bodied left and right.
I'm laughing so hard I almost shat my pants reading this thread
Do you think Progodion was not important in the Kremlin? It's really hard to sort out the web of connections and allegiances, but it seems like Progodion was pretty important, and getting more important and dangerous as Wagner gained notoriety.
No more answering questions with questions. Go back and justify the connections you implied with "favored" and "latitude"
You need to actually fucking say something substantial now. None of this mind palace bullshit. What was his role if not as a mercenary? If he was important at the Kremlin what was his position there?
STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW THINGS. SAY WHAT YOU KNOW.
He was a general of a portion of the Russian army. The most effective portion, giving him a lot of pr. That made him a pretty popular general, which is dangerous for the leader in the best of times.
I'd recommend these for more info on him. They're very well researched and presented. The second and third are long tough.
He was a general of a portion of the Russian army.
No he wasn't. He was the general of a mercenary outfit. He got a lot of PR because he's a nazi and the media your dipshit youtube personalities regurgitate for you has a vested interest in doing a 'very bad people on both sides' because they want you to support an explicitly fascist government. He was effective because they used him for the worst fighting. He's a mercenary. Their job is to die so you don't lose soldiers that hurt you politically. That's also why he was pissed off. The thing that made him dangerous was the part where he fired on Russian military and civilians.
If you want me to engage with your sources you need to go through the video and find them. And just to get ahead of the ball: if you link "Radio free _____" or the Kiev Independent I'm just going to talk about the sources themselves.
Don't both sides the issue, the Nazis in Ukraine command its military and hold office. To the point where even pro-Ukraine news can't blur out all the swastikas, wolfsangels, black suns, and Bandera portraits.
And I agree, Ukraine should be sovereign. Which is why it must reject its current government that was installed by the US via coup. The people the Ukraine should be fighting are their compradors, not the Russians.
didn't even upload these, they've been up since 2022. they still work fine for me even on a fresh browser and a shift-reload. might be an imgur problem and we're hitting different servers
I'm pointing out it's nonsensical to site getting rid of Nazis as a justification to invade when you also have the same problem. What about ism brings up unrelated wrongs, this is showing hypocrisy.
I don't see people on here saying Nazis are the reason it started so much. Most people's take is that Russia is lashing out against encirclement by opposing powers, and also to annex parts of Ukraine that according to polls, don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore.
Western funding of Nazis is just a tried and tested mechanism of levering power against a state.
It's not the reason that Russia started their offensive, but it is a fact that the CIA funds right wing militants to fight on the behalf of the USA's economic interests. They have done so time and time again throughout history, from Europe to Asia to Africa.
Now, as Ukraine rules with western support, they have outlawed left wing parties. This has rather predictably ended with higher rates of admiration of the Nazi Stepan Bandera, the repeal of labour laws, and the mass privatization of the country.
This is typical economic shock doctrine. If Ukraine wins, its people will be the new low wage manufacturers and workers for the world to use and discard for profits. If Russia wins, it's also not great at this point - they'd likely be contending with western funded guerillas, and who knows if Russia would actually reinstate the repealed labour laws and left wing parties, given that Russia itself is a capitalist oligarchy.
Was WWII the US's fault? No it wasn't. Was it good they joined? Yes, you even agree since you think they joined to late. (And I agree they joined too let too) So that fits the qualifications of the first question.
Hitler was heavily inspired by American treatment of Native Americans and black people. Although not completely, he thought the one drop rule was a little too much.
Yes and eugenics was horrible. But are you saying the entirety of Nazi Germany is the majority the fault of the US? That's even more of a stretch than just following orders.
Edit: solely to majority to better reflect the question
I assumed the question meant majority fault, since that's what I mean when I say something is someone's fault. Sorry for the sloppy wording. Majority share of fault.
We’re claiming the US was indirectly responsible for it, and directly refused to enter until it was clear the Soviets were winning to prevent a communist Europe.
Love that you completely ignored the part where the US involvement led to them brutalizing and murdering countless completely innocent civilians. That part is pretty inconvenient to your argument that they were somehow the good guys here so yeah it is a pretty safe bet to ignore it. I'd love to hear you defend it though I'm sure you'll do Uncle Sam proud
But it's irrelevant to the question. The question was whether it was good the US joined WWII. Even accounting for the atrocities, I don't know anyone who would say the US shouldn't have joined the war.
No the question was is there a time when the US was objectively good. You used WW2 as an example. And then ignored all the completely heinous shit the US did during WW2.
SIR, MY PUBLIC EDUCATION HISTORY CLASS SAID WE WERE HEROES AFTER FORCING ME TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIEGANCE EVERY MORNING, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION DROPPING NUKES ON CIVILIANS, PARTICULARLY THE SECOND ONE WHERE JAPAN'S SURRENDER ALREADY WENT FROM INEVIETABLE TO UNDENIABLE AFTER THE FIRST. I AM A HERO BY VIRTUE OF BEING BORN IN AMERICA. A "FEW" HORRIFIC, CIVILIAN MASS MURDERS IS MY DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVELY GOOD.
No, he asked if they were objectively good in that war, which they weren't even fucking close. At best they were a grey-moralist lesser of two evil, but the fact you conflate that with "good" is exactly why you'll never comprehend any situation with any nuance. In your mind it's always "WW2 USA GOOD GUYS SAVED WORLD" like some lead-poisoned brain damaged boomer desperately trying to live voraciously through low-rent nationalist propaganda. I'd say, yes, America was the lesser of two evils compared to Nazi Germany and Japan, and the fact that's the closest you can get to "good" and the political parties you need to compare yourself to, to look better in comparison to someone, proves Infamousblt's point.
The closest to "objectively good" America's actions has been in a situation is "well, it's not as bad as letting Nazi Germany take over all of Europe" and that's not good, that's horror.
The closest to "objectively good" America's actions has been in a situation is "well, it's not as bad as letting Nazi Germany take over all of Europe" and that's not good, that's horror.
That's just the largest example that comes to mind.
I thought the question was 'has the US done any good actions,' which would qualify WWII. If instead the question was asking 'has the US done any actions that are entirely and completely perfect' I would say no nation has.
Capitalists and communists in many countries helped cause their rise to power.
You're just saying that because "both sides" feels true to you. It's not, though. Communists in Germany were the bitterest opponents of the Nazis, before the latter even had a strong party formation. And as the first line of the poem goes, Communists were the first ones "they" came for (although this is usually omitted in liberal retellings".
If you've ever heard of Antonio Gramsci you know that imprisoning or killing communists was the first order of business under Mussolini.
You can name any country that went fascist, and we can point out where the capitalists were easing it along and the communists were fighting it tooth and nail.
Probably the Italians and Germans were a bit involved too, obviously ww2 is not entirely the fault of America but they were some giant fucking dominoes that fell.
The US wasn’t even in on the treaty of Versailles if that’s what you’re talking about.
The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America, to say they weren’t in on the treaty is true but it’s sleight of hand ignoring the role US played in dictating the economic direction of Europe through its role as creditor.
Then, you had US industrialists funding and working with the Nazis as they rose to power.
The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America
This is an absurd take, regardless of its veracity (do you have a source?).
The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US, and there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans. The UK and France were harsh with Germany because they hated and feared Germany and wanted revenge after World War 1.
I have absolutely no doubt that you would be even more outraged if the US had indeed forgiven its wartime loans to Britain and France after WW1. I'm not sure what your angle would be, but it would probably be more persuasive than your current argument 😉
The book Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson gets into this in depth with all the receipts. It was common practice in Europe that debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven, so it was actually breaking with all precedent that the US demanded full repayment with interest from their allies, and the circular flow of payments from US banks to postwar Germany, to the European allies and back to the US is clearly documented and laid out by Hudson in his book. This is an arrangement that was intentional and beneficial to the United States at the expense of Europe, until it came crashing down when the financial bubble it created popped and the Great Depression resulted.
How can a take be “absurd regardless of its veracity”. Literally stating the truth is “absurd” if it reflects poorly on the United States? Do you find yourself overwhelmed living in such an absurd world (this one, where the United States is objectively a bad actor)?
The reason I say it's absurd regardless of veracity is because it was not a valid geopolitical option. The US was still pursuing an isolationist foreign policy in the eyes of the public, it would have been political suicide to forgive those loans. The fact that we got involved at all was already shocking to Americans, if we then waived repayment it would have been a national outrage.
Also, I that I highly doubt that the US decision to demand repayment of the loans is notably outside of the bounds of normal international conduct. I haven't read that book so I can't say for sure, but I have a hunch that you're making a false equivalency somewhere.
debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven
Perhaps this is the reason, because the US was less of a wartime ally and more of a savior. The US was under absolutely no military threat, and thus viewing the loans as part of some kind of collective wartime struggle is quite the stretch.
The U.S wasn’t really implementing an isolationist policy, and never has since its inception. (Certainly not prior to WW1 when they had just finished going to war with Spain to take over its colonies, nor during nor after WW1 when they sent troops to a different Latin American country every single year to impose their will). It was just brutal realpolitik.
“Isolationism” vs free trade and free markets, the US government and ruling class just does whatever benefits itself the most. Hence, other countries need to open up their markets to US exports post WW1 but the U.S. will simultaneously levy protectionist tariffs so that European goods can’t be competitive in the US market. Germany had no recourse but to borrow more money from US banks to pay their reparations, so that UK can turn around and give that money back to the US government. The only other way for these governments to meet their payments to the US was to impose austerity and wring the money out of their own domestic population (which they also did, also a contributing factor to the turmoil which eventually led to another world war).
I don’t buy this “aw shucks we would love to forgive the debt or interest but we just can’t sell that to our domestic masses who care a lot about fiscal policy”. They did it because it directly benefited them (the ruling class and their state). They made massive profits off of the entire arrangement. Nothing mysterious about their motivations there. A better topic of discussion is would the European powers agreed to pay up, when that actually went against their own interests (look where it got them!)
We advocate for the forgiveness of all IMF loans, as they are primarily a way of exacting concessions against governments of underdeveloped countries, privatizing their industry for the profits of multinational companies and cementing theor economies as subordinate.
One example is Haiti, where upon their independence France extorted them for tens of multiples of their GDP, purportedly for the "cost" incurred, and were in debt for 2 centuries.
We aren't too concerned with Britain and France getting repaid on any international debts when they're so far ahead, at other countries' expense, to begin with.
there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans
even mean? How about “these countries were just destroyed by war and can’t reasonably be expected to pay”?
Governments can and do forgive loans when they feel it’s appropriate. The U.S. made a conscious decision to wield its creditor status without mercy to further crush Europe and solidify its own position as top global power.
The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US
Yeah which is why they should have told US to stuff it with its ridiculous demands for payment lol
Was the US being in ww2 good? Probably not. Not just becoming a rogue nation and using WMDs on civilians but the money we stole from Europe went on to pay for us doing several genocides. So on balance it isn't great
But was the government Nazi? Since Nazi Germany had conscription, I'd image it'd be hard to find anyone in Germany who wasn't a Nazi. But as I understand it, there was actual systematic denazification that kept the government on track.
Since Nazi Germany had conscription, I’d image it’d be hard to find anyone in Germany who wasn’t a Nazi. But as I understand it, there was actual systematic denazification that kept the government on track.
Seems like you didn't have a good response to this point, would you like to try again?
It's not worth responding to blatant lies, West Germany did not have "actual systematic denazification", their government was staffed with Nazis and they literally had a Nazi general as head of NATO. This is akin to burying your head in the sand and complaining that people aren't helping you see.
There was no "systemic denazification". We killed a few figureheads, then put the rest back into power, and into NATO leadership. West Germany was a Nazi country.
Are you asking about the political implications of denazification for East Germany?
I'd say that the fact that Nazis were effectively eradicated in East Germany is proof enough that it turned out well for them.
Or are you concern-trolling about the Berlin Wall or the economic underdevelopment of east Germany comparative to West Germany devoid of any historical context or something like that?
Look up some of these Nazis in the BRD. We're not talking about conscripted soldiers. The people that are brought up check one or (often) multiple of the following boxes:
Members of the Nazi party and other Nazi organizations, and they weren't forced to join these either.
Officers or officials in charge of the war crimes, the Holocaust, or some other Nazi crimes.
People directly on-the-ground involved in war crimes and mass murder.
Capitalists or managers profiting off the Nazi war effort, using slave labor and/or profiting of stolen Jewish wealth.
There were thousands of people guilty of stuff like this in all levels of the BRD government, including many the highest levels. This was normal. The Western allies could have hanged some top 10,000 of those responsible, easily, but they didn't. They let them out of prison, hired them, and helped them escape justice.
They did the same thing in occupied Korea with Japanese occupiers and collaborators. Put the fascists back in charge who had enslaved their countrymen. They did this everywhere. America merged with fascism it didn't defeat it, it's upgraded to level 2 fascism.
The Gehlen Organisation, which later became absorbed wholesale into the West German state as their intelligence apparatus, was literally just a bunch of Nazis headed by Nazi lieutenant-general Reinhard Gehlen.
Was the government Nazi? Well, that entire arm of the government certainly was!
Pretty sure camp survivors weren't. They would have needed new jobs so that would have been pretty a pretty good way to help fix things. Only we didn't want justice. We wanted people who were used to fighting the soviets. So nazies. We wanted them in power, just working for us.
D-Day happened not because of some altruistic desire to liberate France but because the remaining capitalist states saw that Germany was neither salvageable nor willing to work with them, and something need to be done to stop the Soviets from liberating all of continental Europe and building a socialist bloc with abundant year round naval ports in the open Atlantic.
Prior to the war Nazi Germany was chomping at the bit to destroy the Soviet Union, and the Soviets wanted to take a wrecking ball to Germany, both for the sake of destroying the political epicenter of European fascism, and so they could keep pushing the revolution westward and take the entirety of the continent.
The Western alliance with Poland was an attempt at managing this rivalry, so that they could try to force this nearly inevitable conflict to happen on their terms, not Germany nor Russia’s. The West must have seen that if Germany won this fight and had their pick of whatever they wanted in Eastern Europe, France would end up with a monstrous neighbor that occupied the entire rest of the European mainland, and although Communism would have been uprooted from Russia, Germany could easily use its newly acquired land/resources/industrial capacity to double back and take on France. The goal of destroying the Soviets is achieved, but the Fascist bloc becomes the dominant faction of the imperial core and the anglo-Liberal forces are forced to either submit or try to hold out as just the UK and US against the rest of the world.
Now, if Russia were to win this impending Russo-German war, there was no way in hell Stalin slows his roll after beating Germany and stops at the French border— France and possibly Franco’s Spain would be next, and where does this leave the West? Unlike a German victory, the anglo-Liberal faction of the imperial core is all that’s left and they are stuck with the entire European mainland controlled by communists, an outcome they’ll do anything to avoid. With the shipyard of Germany and France and access to the open Atlantic, they can threaten anglo naval superiority and even plan an invasion of the British isles— and unlike Hitler, who represents just another faction of capitalism, Stalin and the communists are far less likely to give the remaining Western countries the option to accept subservience if they lay down their arms.
So the West find themselves in a position where if they do nothing in this coming Russo-German war, they are screwed either way, and although a Nazi victory is preferable, they figure that through geopolitical fuckery they can get involved and alter the tides. If they side with the communists, which god knows the Western governments broadly speaking do not want to do, they can at least manage the fall of Germany, and hopefully negotiate a post-war European order where the Soviets do not have access to the open Atlantic (i.e., ports that aren’t in an inland sea or the hard to navigate Arctic). D-Day was of course an attempt at taking back territory in France but more importantly it was the first step toward securing a foothold in Germany and making sure that there was a mobilised, battle-hardened force waiting to meet the Soviets so that a hard limit could be put on their Western advance. I don’t mean to say that no one wanted France back under a French government, or that there weren’t people in the anglo military commands and governments who were genuinely disgusted by the Nazis and the crimes committed continent-wide during their occupations, but to the cold, realistic, realpolitiking minds of the people at the top like Eisenhower, the primary goal was setting up the board for the next fight— the Anglosphere versus the Soviet Union.
US General George Patton was adamant that if he was allowed to, he could have taken American troops to Prague and secured Czechia for the West in the post-war order well in advance of the Red Army’s arrival. He was promptly informed by Eisenhower that he would doing no such thing. The post-war order had already been negotiated behind the scenes, and through strategically supporting their mortal enemies against a foe that really wasn’t much different than themselves politically or economically, the intact West had made sure that they also held at least part of Central Europe, instead of either Germany or the Soviet Union controlling the entire continent. So D-Day wasn't purely an anti-communist action, but was also crucial to the Western grand strategy of making sure the Soviets didn’t just keep steaming onward, and setting the stage for the Cold War in terms more favorable to the West.
While there are aspects of that narrative I agree with, I think there's some pretty questionable claims as well.
Now, if Russia were to win this impending Russo-German war, there was no way in hell Stalin slows his roll after beating Germany and stops at the French border
What?? Even with support from the rest of the Allies, WWII was devastating for the Soviets, it required an extraordinary loss of life and resources to defeat the fascists. I'm not inclined to believe that Stalin would simply attack France out of nowhere in this timeline, and I certainly don't agree that "there was no way in hell" they wouldn't. What's your reasoning or evidence for this idea?
So the West find themselves in a position where if they do nothing in this coming Russo-German war, they are screwed either way, and although a Nazi victory is preferable, they figure that through geopolitical fuckery they can get involved and alter the tides.
It's quite a big brained move to try to alter the tides by siding with the larger threat lol.
I don't think there's reason or evidence to suggest that the West found German dominanation all that preferable to Soviet domination. Losing is losing, and while the fascists would preserve and extend the systems of capitalist exploitation, it likely wouldn't be the same exploiters at the top. Germany posed a very real threat of dethroning and replacing the exploiters, which to the exploiters is just as bad as the system of exploitation being dismantled.
This narrative also neglects the Soviet perspectives of the time. The Soviets were more than happy to accept help from the Allies and if anything were critical of them not taking more territory faster. It was only once victory was a forgone conclusion that the rush to sieze land really kicked off. It's also worth noting that the UK and France got involved before any fighting between Germany and the USSR broke out.
So D-Day wasn't purely an anti-communist action
Wasn't purely anti-communist?! It's pretty absurd to imply that it was primarily anti-communist, the Soviets wanted D-Day to happen.
I find this whole narrative is very oversimplified, speculative, and not aligned with the actual history.
Actually the overwhelming majority of French resistance saw the Red Army as liberators in 1945.
That's a totally different scenario to what's being discussed. We're not talking about the USSR moving into France in the historical timeline. We're talking about a timeline where France and the UK sit back and let Germany duke it out with the USSR, and then, after a long, bloody war, the USSR emerges victorious, and then decides to invade France for some reason. In this scenario, there is no French resistance because there is no Nazi occupation of France.
The USSR never invaded West Germany post-WWII, so with the benefit of hindsight, probably never.
However, if France and the UK were so concerned about that, then instead of going to war with the USSR's #1 enemy, they could have sat back and built up their strength while letting the two fight. Then, once in this timeline the USSR finally defeats the Nazis singlehandedly, they could attack the USSR themselves, since it would've been considerably weakened while they were at full strength.
The reality of British and French motivations were more complex than a singular focus on defeating the USSR through the 5th dimensional chess move of forming an alliance with them. What they wanted was stability. They wanted to maintain their "rules based international order" (with themselves on top). The idea was to keep Germany on a leash as a guard dog against the Soviets, and they cut him an incredible amount of slack, just straight up handing him Czechoslovakia in spite of being in a formal alliance with them. But Hitler figured he could just get away with whatever and it turned out that there was, in fact, a line.
In this scenario there is no west Germany because the ussr extends out fast past the border the americnas wouldn't have been there to create. The USSR would have been the only industrial power left in Europe which as a region would have been even further destroyed. So just pushing into the territory of the old empire to fix everything would have looked like a pretty good idea especially since it wouldn't be risking a nuke from the US to do so.
In this scenario there is no west Germany because the ussr extends out fast past the border the americnas wouldn't have been there to create.
I know, I'm saying that historically, the USSR did not expand westward into West Germany so it's unlikely to think that they would expand westerward into France in the hypothetical. Certainly not inevitable.
The USSR would have been the only industrial power left in Europe which as a region would have been even further destroyed.
Are you considering France and the UK to not be industrial powers? The areas that would be destroyed in this scenario are limited to territories occupied by the USSR, since we're talking about the UK and France staying out of the conflict.
So just pushing into the territory of the old empire to fix everything would have looked like a pretty good idea especially since it wouldn't be risking a nuke from the US to do so.
Not sure why you're assuming the US doesn't get nukes here. Am I to believe that Germany would fall more quickly if it was just focused on fighting the Soviets?
Honestly this whole premise is completely ridiculous. It's not like Germany was easy pickings for snatching up territory at the start of the war. What you're doing is looking at the very end of the war, when Germany was defeated and everyone was rushing to seize more territory, and trying to extrapolate those conditions back to the start where they don't apply. Going to war with Germany just to make sure the Soviets don't get the territory means a prolonged war with a very real threat of losing for literally no reason when they could've just stayed out of it and mopped up the pieces later if that was their only goal. It's nonsense.
Yes, it is a counterfactual that didn't happen it is nonsense.
You have to consider that at the start of the war the USSR and Germamy have done the fewest number of genocides. So we have to project or knowledge backwards here.
I'm not talking about the counterfactual being nonsense I'm talking about the original claim about British and French motivations for going to war with Germany. I don't really know what the number of genocides have to do with anything.
You seem to be viewing this like its sports, I don't fucking care about who you think are "undoubtably" bad guys, as far as I'm concerned America is worse. It's getting people killed, for lines on a map, and you guys brought this on.
Why is it the US's fault that Russia decided that Ukraine should be theirs? Does Russia have a moral obligation to not be relegated to a regional power?
We are taking about good and bad, and whether it was bad or good that Russia invaded. Those are moral questions. So yes, we can ask whether the actions of a nation are moral.
No we are not. You are talking about good and bad because that's the level you engage with politics.
I say it's asenine to attribute moral character to the citizens of a nation of millions unless you're really prepared to have your glass house targetted.
Are Americans guilty of its crimes? Should people consider Americans immoral because of all the genocides, slavery, and ongoing mass incarcerations?
Hmm, I see abandoning morality as bad. Actually, whataboutism to just call everyone bad is a common tactic used by neo Nazis to say Germany wasn't that bad.
I'm trying to acknowledge that they are terrible while still staying on topic. What would you rather me do? Not condemn Russia because the US has done totally unrelated bad things? That doesn't make any sense.
this is literally a post about USA bad, where you are harping "russia bad" out of nowhere. Russia is not the point of the post in any way. You are the one off topic.
Also the US is related to almost every conflict on earth since the creation of the CIA, and are definitely ones doing bad shit in ukraine.
I said the US was good for helping Ukraine against Russia. People responded with 'actualy Russia good,' so I responded to them. I don't disagree with the post that the US has done bad things. I disagree with the comments that the US can has and will always do the morally worst thing possible, so much so that all other countries look great by comparison.
Hexbear is agreeing on one thing: the war in ukraine is bad, and america is directly contributing to the starting and continuation of the conflict. They've been funding Nazi movements in ukraine since literally right after the end of ww2. The US used ukraine to poke the bear on purpose, it didn't think russia would react, and it did. Now all the empires are at war.
but you have crossed the fucking line
how dare you compare the two. Russia is no fucking friend, but you dare compare it to the USA? The American Empire? You ask us to side with them on anything?
America has done the most morally despicable things at almost every opportunity. They tried to starve cuba by dropping the swine flu on them. They pardoned the japanese and german fascist government officials to establish puppet states to use agianst the soviets. They fucking used officials and data from Unit 731 (a division so evil it will make you almost throw up just reading it) to kill people in vietnam! You think they came up with all their chemical warfare out of nowhere? America has killed countless african anti-colonial movements and chosen to side with the apartheid regimes of South Africa and Israel at every opportunity. They helped their buddy france to maintain their colonial hegemony over the african people, and then literally tried to assassinate the prime minister of France when he didn't want to kill as many people. They literally hired a Nazi concentration camp leader called "the butcher" to become a leader in NASA! THE BUTCHER! They hired a man named "hitler's favorite commmando" who took part in a mission to rescue mussolini at one point. HE WAS THE NAZI SOLDIER! He was hired by the CIA to be deployed on anti communist hit squads.
They've couped every nation in south America at least once, and most of the ones in central America. The leaders were always ones that were trying to do internal buildup programs, did basic workers rights protections, or respected democratic process and let communists in government if they were voted in. Fidel and the sandinistas are the only ones to have survived. Not for lack of trying, the CIA tried to kill Fidel 600 times over the course of his life. Of those in the majority they did get, did they replace those leaders with law abiding, human rights loving individuals? Nope Fascist military juntas and criminal syndicate leaders. They would carry out reigns of terror that would KILL MILLIONS! OF COMMUNISTS! Of anyone adjacent to them! Friends, colleges, friends of friends, it didn't matter! Millions dead!
Indonesia they supported a fascist junta leader to lead a hostile takeover of moderate Indonesia. Because they dared to have communists in government, to have a progressive government, to side with the interests of their country over that of NATO or anyone else. They directly contributed to this, and then that man killed us all. They told him to kill every last dissenter and communist. There used to be millions of communists in indonesia, local native movements and city workers alike. They killed every last one of them along with their family. The PKI is fucking gone, not because they became unpopular, but because they shot them all. They literally had to close fishing in many areas because the fishermen would only drag up corpses. Rivers would be dammed up by the sheer amount of bodies clogging them.
The US did it, it wouldn't have been possible at all without the US providing millions in funds to the coup efforts, for the guns and arms they supplied. They used agents to sabotage the government and military.
Genocide has never been an exception, for the US, it is the rule. These are grassroots movements the world over fighting for freedom and the US has been making sure to kill and break every single one.
We call it the Great Satan, and we aren't kidding when we say it.
Sankara, Allende, Arbenz, the Spanish republicans, the Greek partisans, millions of Vietnamese, 20% of the population of Korea at least, Turning Libya from one of the most prosperous countries in Africa into a fucking slave state, ruining Iraq (who used to be the most progressive and prosperous countries in the middle east), Nasser in Egypt, the United Arab Republic, they killed fucking Malcolm X, and that's just a fucking taste. I'm not even joking, the crimes of the US against communists (real and not) and true freedom, are too numerous to mention without wasting several thousand pages.
So excuse us for taking a small bit of glee in watching, as someone finally takes direct action against the US and its NATO allies. As someone on a similar power fights the US directly for the first time since 1991. As we watch their war machines explode on the field. As we watch the colonies liberate themselves. As we watch the Empire die from their blunders. We will see every downed plane as glorious vengeance. Every billion dollars wasted in futility as a bit of sooth to the losses of 91. Every Wunderwaffen tank be shredded, instead of rolling over weaker powers like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last cries of the soviets, while killing itself, also strikes the face of the American beast. The last cries of Marxism Leninism's greatest project draining the Empire and its vassal. The final strike to begin the collapse was stricken by the consequences of its own actions. China and Russia, corpses of our past, are using our weapons to finally kill it. Our only regret is that the Soviet Union itself isn't killing the USA and Europe.
My nation of Hawaii was stolen from the Hawaiian natives, and now they are supposed to be grateful. To wait. To expect for you to deign to give them back the home you stole. TO WAIT FOR THEIR RIGHTS!
EVERY DAY I SEE AMERICANS PILLAGE THIS LAND! BURN THIS LAND! POISON THIS LAND! Its not even mine, but that doesn't lessen my hatred.
What Russia and China have done is pennies next to the crimes of America. Especially to communists. Now we may vary on Russia, and we may debate the war, but we are united on this: The day we side with America will never happen, ever. America and the Nazis are the eternal enemies of the Communists. We will never side with Ukraine, because we know America is not fighting for good. Because America is interested in using blood to whet the wheels of its imperial machine. If there is no one who hates America on this earth, it means we are no longer on this earth.
I will never hate any nation more than the USA, it is almost impossible. I hate it so much that I stopped being suicidal because I had to see it die. One day my fear of death will be overshadowed by my hatred of America. My ideology can be described as anti American and anti fascism in its entirety. If it hates American and fascism, I am immediately sympathetic. If it turns its guns on America or its vassals, I am immediately sympathetic. I sided with communism because that is what America fears most. I side with communism because that is what fascism fears most. America is the primary source of fascism, it is the fortress of capitalism. I believe in it for more than that now, but it is still a core of my being.
Russia is an enemy, one that I will rejoice to see fall to a socialist revolution. I seethe every time I see it remembering the world we lost. I hope for the death of every single leader in office. I hope or the purge of the traitors in the KPRF. I see it and wish for a rebirth of a nation I know will never come back. I have no allegiance to it
But America...
I don't want it to fucking exist. In any form.
You are peddling for sympathy you will not find, I hate everything in America, everything about it, with every bit of blood and bone in my body.
And yet I don't begrudge you for it, I fully understand how the system in which we live engenders this type of deranged rebellion. But still, I regret to inform you that even if the US were to cease to exist tomorrow, the global problems that are the true source of your anger would simply be exacerbated.
comrade, the socialist revolution solves the main problems of capitalism. Socialism is our main goal to transit towards communism.
The death of the United states would allow a complete freedom of the communist ideals. The propaganda centre and fortress of capitalism would die, and socialist movements would pop up all over the globe. With the main idiots in the west broken, or themselves socialist, then we can start fixing all these issues. Climate change, colonialism, the lot of it. Of course I realize it won't be perfect, but it will undoubtedly be better.
I wish I still believed that. But it requires a great deal of faith, and it's a bit cavalier to destabilize all of human civilization without hard evidence that communism will actually work.
Enlightenment thinkers espoused a similar level of faith in the transformative power of free trade and democracy, as opposed to mercantilism and monarchy. It was indeed a transformative power, but it arguably took us even further away from our ideal society.
Everybody and their mother knows capitalism is flawed, but the viability of communism is still very much an open question. I personally think it's worth a shot, but having blind faith that it will definitely be better is a bridge too far for me. As soul crushing as capitalism is, we also tend to take for granted all the problems it does do a good job solving, because we have never experienced any other social system.
The US backed the coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014 which actually caused most of this mess. Plus you know, destroying the USSR through 70 years of aggression and hostility known as the Cold War. If the USSR was never destroyed, the world and Ukraine would both be far better off today.
Morality is subjective and based on one's surroundings and differs not only from culture to culture but by the individual. It's a really piss poor way ti analyze mass movements or geopolitics
we can ask whether the actions of a nation are moral.
Well, if we have to speak this way, Russia’s position is the more defensible position. I sympathize for the people of Ukraine and want the war over.
The best thing the Ukrainian government could do is make peace and let the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics join Russia, since that’s what its citizens want.
If you think that’s unacceptable, then the US should return Texas to Mexico before it has a right to speak on this.
You can just Google shit dude. Do the bare minimum some time. It's embarrassing how confident you fucking dorks act given how catastrophically ignorant and helpless you are at the same time.
I develop my entire worldview through adversarial conversations on the internet. If you don't spoon feed me sources for even the most well established facts my ego will starve and I'll say something bigoted but pretend you're the asshole for taking offense. Yes I'm a liberal, how'd you know?
The comment was very ambiguous, and I had a feeling they had something in particular in mind. If they showed the one they were thinking about, we could better talk about the same thing.
"Contras" is not ambiguous. That would be like calling the "Mujahideen" ambiguous. It's a real group with a name and historical record, and the US government funded them because they were fighting eViL GoMmUniSm.
Oh yeah, the US funded and armed the Mujahideen (aka precursors of the Taliban) too, by the way. Same story different name/continent.
I'm saying the US has done horrible things. But saying it's literally the worst thing possible and never can will or has done anything approaching beneficial pushes you right into embracing even worse authoritarian and cruel governments.
They would if they could. Brittany did during the age of sail, Spain before that. China would love to become the only global super power.
I think the world would be worse off with Russia or China as the only super powers, as they have even worse democracy than the US, so their governments will can be further out of line with the people.
And multiple super powers isn't very good either, last time during the cold war it caused tones of loss of life from proxi wars. And direct war would be even worse.
The United States, from its very inception has been and is an expansionist, imperialist project. From its inception the tools it uses to gain and maintain dominance over the rest of the world include genocide, slavery, mass murder campaigns, invasion, bombing, covert support for military coup and dictatorship, brutal suppression of all opposition to capitalism and the U.S. led global capitalist order. It has more of its own people locked up in cages than any other country in the world, both as a percentage and in total numbers. It spends more on military and policing than any other country. Simply put, no country is more brutal or heinous in its authoritarian ways than the United States of America.
That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I'd have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you've expanded them.
Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn't altruistic. So it isn't fully objectively good as someone above objected.
Now you're changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn't objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.
At what point do you cool off? You've been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you've engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you're right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?
And no. The person you're referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn't objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There's a distinction.
Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this?
Good question. I had hoped I would give an argument that the US is not incalculably worse than authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. But y'all seem to really like them despite reality, and there are way too many of you to talk to.
And this isn't good for my sleep schedule, so I'll manually defederate by blocking all your subs. Bye, thanks for being reasonable
It's fucking wild how many times you've run face first into examples of not knowing what you're talking about and being 100% wrong about and then continuing to say shit like "despite reality" as if you have any fucking idea what that reality is.
You were probably going to get banned for all this debatebro bullshit anyway
I dunno. I am not sure we made huge differences in that score. However I know our being in the area to meddle after that is probably not worth the assistance
Fighting WWII and currently supplying lots of stuff to Ukraine.
Ah yes how could I forget a war that the US only joined years late and well after millions of people had already died. A war where the US setup their own concentration camps for Japanese Americans. A war where the US used nuclear bombs to obliterate civilians in an unprecedented way. SURELY that war the US was definitely the good guys there.
And then Ukraine, a war where the US is giving unlimited guns to literal Nazis and shoving civilians into an endless and completely unnecessary meat grinder. Yeah definitely the objective good guys in that conflict. Also the US was largely at fault for the conflict in the first place so even if they were objectively the good guys here it would be them cleaning up their mess. They aren't though they're making it worse.
There are a few literal Nazis on both sides. Ukraine doesn't have any in the government or high command apparatus.
Why is the meat grinder unnecessary? Should Ukraine just give up it's sovereignty and become part of Russia? If not, the war remains necessary.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Do you think Wagner is not Nazi, or is not Russian?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
it takes a dozen of us to wrangle the sheer amount of idiotic brainworms you have
Cool cool cool. Anyway, you were saying there are only Nazis in Ukraine command and not Russia's?
If you really can't keep track of conversations in your head at least look at the context of each comment you reply to so you don't look like a stupid wall people are talking to
when did I say that
also difference between an entire army sporting nazi symbolism and russia having their planes' shot down
Zelensky thanked and did a photo shoot with the Nazi Andriy Biletsky (leader of the Azov Battalion, said his goal is to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen”); Zelensky also wears and advertises Nazi merchandise [1] [2]. And Ukrainian parliament and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine openly celebrate Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (he has monuments all over Ukraine). So your claims of no Nazis in govt or high command are completely incorrect.
“Nazis on both sides” is nonsense, and before the war demanded every western source to support Ukraine, the Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine was widely publicized and documented [1] [2] [3] [4]. Clearly the US realized how many Nazis there were in Ukraine to the extent that they lifted regulations on congressional funding of Neo Nazis when supporting Ukraine. Maybe before giving up it’s sovereignty Ukraine can try to remove its monuments to Nazi collaborators, purge Nazis from office, and stop being a U.S. vassal state.
deleted by creator
Oh sorry, I thought you meant that there were no Nazis in Russian power when you said 'nazis on both sides' was nonsense. So your saying Nazis are in higher places of power in Ukraine than Russia?
Damn can you for a second think about systematic versus individual arguments? Nobody thinks there are no Nazi's with power in Russia (though the biggest ones were recently killed). It's about how those ideologies function in Russian and Ukrainian socio/political-economic situation.
In Russia, they are systematically oppressed, with many far right figures calling Putin jewish-supporting and anti-right wing for the way that their organizations are systematically kept down. There were celebrations of collaborators after the 90's that have consistently been stopped by police and people arrested for long times for partaking in recent decades.
Meanwhile, regardless of INDIVIDUAL Nazi's (which on this front is still many more, but I don't really care about that), Ukraine is incorporating the ideological functions of, and avoiding any critique of, the Nazi collaboration supporters. More people are picking up the symbols of Nazism, people are using the language and ideological underpinnings of Nazism to discuss Russians in orientalist and anti-Semitism-influenced language about how lesser and Asian they are.
In one country, such talk is dying off as it's oppressed away and in the other it's growing and becoming only more popular.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
it's a moral good though
deleted by creator
/s I hope
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
It's not okay to use slurs against developmentally disabled people. It's not okay to use slurs against people with mental health problems.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I hope you die :)
deleted by creator
you can get fucked, shitbag
deleted by creator
They were being used as cannon fodder with the intent to destroy them, and their leadership was assassinated by Putin. Doesn't exactly seem like Russia is a fan of them
Whatabout. Whatabout? Whataboooouuuuut! ism.
Whataboutism
ad hominem!
deleted by creator
Whataboutbyrger! Whataboutism!!ism
The comment was saying that it's bogus that there are Nazis on both sides. I asked if the Wagner Nazis were Russian. It directly relates to the claims.
Ukraine has a national holiday celebrating their nazi leader from WW2. Russia has a holiday celebrating the defeat of the Nazis in WW2.
Ukraine also has may 9th, Victory Day over Nazism in World War II. Are you taking about defender's day? I didn't find any holidays that fit your description.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-celebrates-nazi-collaborator-bans-book-critical-of-pogroms-leader/
I'm not the only one getting tired of you speaking as if with authority and needing to be taught fundamental aspects of the topics you're talking about.
Is Wagner a Nazi paramilitary, or a penal legion? One day I hear they are a bunch of ideological soldiers just like Azov, next I hear that it's full of Russian prisoners trying to shorten their sentences.
Also "wHaTaBoUtIsM"
Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?
Doesn't matter Putin iced their leaders and took control. Denazification is happening. Trust the plan.
the USA has been pushing nazi ideology in Ukraine for 70 years
CIA: Undermining and Nazifying Ukraine Since 1953
That's not surprising for during the cold war.
TIL that supporting nazis is okay if they hate your opponent
Why are nazis aligned with your interests and why do nazis oppose your rival? Doesn't matter, repeat your mantra, "We are the good guys".
nice handwave. even if that excused pushing and helping nazis (it doesn't) you ignore the last 30 years they were doing it after that. very convenient
Would you say it's bad the US pushed and supported Nazi's around the world to fight communism?
They never stopped.
Dude, Valerii Zaluzhnyi literally has 2 busts of Bandera in his office.
Tldr, the commander of the armed forces of Ukraine is a nazi.
Poll by Rating, a Ukrainian research institute, shows positive opinions of Stepan Bandera (Jew exterminating Nazi) soaring from 22 per cent in 2012 to 74 per cent in April 2022. (post maidan revolution in 2014)
Those opinions are stronger the further you get away from Russia. They are weaker in Crimea and Donbass.
The left wing parties in Ukraine have been banned.
Russia isn't trying to absorb Ukraine. They would absolutely broker a deal to take back Crimea and Donbass and leave the rest. A significant number in those places are ethnically russian (it's the largest ethnicity proportion in the area ~ 39%) and a higher proportion than just ethnic Russians are open to becoming part of Russia (~49%)
some sources:
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/ukraine/2023/01/ukraine-stepan-bandera-nationalist
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280134876_Terrorists_or_national_heroes_Politics_and_perceptions_of_the_OUN_and_the_UPA_in_Ukraine
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/15/russia-ukraine-donbas-donetsk-luhansk-public-opinion/
Post source of Nazis in leadership ranks in Russian military or government
Prigozhin has Nazi eagle tats off the top of my head.
deleted by creator
No, he's the Ukraine asov group that got wiped out, right?
deleted by creator
Holy shit I didn’t know that that Utkin piece of shit was on that plane. He was the only guy liberals could come up with when they were saying that Nazis were also in Russia too (although he had not been seen in public since 2016). Once again I must express my critical support for Putin, especially when he’s mercing Nazis. Odd that liberals haven’t praised Putin for doing this, since I thought they hated Nazis?
They wanted prigo to do a coup, they cheered for him and called Wagner freedom fighters during their little farce
Oh okay cool.
deleted by creator
But he was Russia inner circle. Till he decided to try and coup.
He was a mercenary.
Favored by Putin and given special latitude. You aren't going to start a pmc without serious political capital, plus Putin had been commissioning them for a long time.
Do those words mean anything? Favored? Latitude?
And the strength of these connections is why hiring and then killing off a mercenary makes the Russian government the nature of being nazis in the same way Ukraine having actual nazi politicians in charge does?
Why do you argue so fucking far past the point it's obvious you're wrong? You're an entire branching comment tree in this post. You never give up on a single point but you're getting bodied left and right.
I'm laughing so hard I almost shat my pants reading this thread
Do you think Progodion was not important in the Kremlin? It's really hard to sort out the web of connections and allegiances, but it seems like Progodion was pretty important, and getting more important and dangerous as Wagner gained notoriety.
No more answering questions with questions. Go back and justify the connections you implied with "favored" and "latitude"
You need to actually fucking say something substantial now. None of this mind palace bullshit. What was his role if not as a mercenary? If he was important at the Kremlin what was his position there?
STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW THINGS. SAY WHAT YOU KNOW.
He was a general of a portion of the Russian army. The most effective portion, giving him a lot of pr. That made him a pretty popular general, which is dangerous for the leader in the best of times.
I'd recommend these for more info on him. They're very well researched and presented. The second and third are long tough.
https://youtu.be/1hE8CvA-Vlo?si=zgtpPdV5lY5jAo5u https://youtu.be/tP8VPkWXOfU?si=do2_txrH6BcEsjoZ https://youtu.be/va3UtYl6PUs?si=UUHjnKvMFHxT7NOq
I'm not watching your dipshit youtube videos.
No he wasn't. He was the general of a mercenary outfit. He got a lot of PR because he's a nazi and the media your dipshit youtube personalities regurgitate for you has a vested interest in doing a 'very bad people on both sides' because they want you to support an explicitly fascist government. He was effective because they used him for the worst fighting. He's a mercenary. Their job is to die so you don't lose soldiers that hurt you politically. That's also why he was pissed off. The thing that made him dangerous was the part where he fired on Russian military and civilians.
If you want me to engage with your sources you need to go through the video and find them. And just to get ahead of the ball: if you link "Radio free _____" or the Kiev Independent I'm just going to talk about the sources themselves.
Not anymore after his body fell thousands of feet from the sky lmao
Don't both sides the issue, the Nazis in Ukraine command its military and hold office. To the point where even pro-Ukraine news can't blur out all the swastikas, wolfsangels, black suns, and Bandera portraits.
And I agree, Ukraine should be sovereign. Which is why it must reject its current government that was installed by the US via coup. The people the Ukraine should be fighting are their compradors, not the Russians.
deleted by creator
"bUt RuSSiA hAs nAzIs tOo!"
meanwhile in the Ukraine
EDIT: if imgur is crapping out for you, here they are reuploaded to hexbear:
"bUt RuSSiA hAs nAzIs tOo!"
meanwhile in the Ukraine
Gonna have to agree that Imgur seems to have borked your images somehow, even on hexbear, I get errors on those links
didn't even upload these, they've been up since 2022. they still work fine for me even on a fresh browser and a shift-reload. might be an imgur problem and we're hitting different servers
check edit
EDIT: also thanks for letting me know
Both of your links seem to be broken.
they work fine, your brain seems to be broken
No, it really isn’t working for me. I can’t see it from Lemmygrad or Hexbear.
It just says “Oops, we couldn’t find that page”
don't know what to tell you, they still work here. must be something spotty going on with imgur
Yeah I can't see them either
check edit, reupped to hexbear
reupped to hexbear for you since imgur appears to be having some sort of coherency problem
Thanks for the images lol.
They have been reuploaded to Hexbear so you can see them now.
W H A T A B O U T I S M
I'm doing it you mean?
I'm pointing out it's nonsensical to site getting rid of Nazis as a justification to invade when you also have the same problem. What about ism brings up unrelated wrongs, this is showing hypocrisy.
I don't see people on here saying Nazis are the reason it started so much. Most people's take is that Russia is lashing out against encirclement by opposing powers, and also to annex parts of Ukraine that according to polls, don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore.
Western funding of Nazis is just a tried and tested mechanism of levering power against a state.
It's not the reason that Russia started their offensive, but it is a fact that the CIA funds right wing militants to fight on the behalf of the USA's economic interests. They have done so time and time again throughout history, from Europe to Asia to Africa.
Now, as Ukraine rules with western support, they have outlawed left wing parties. This has rather predictably ended with higher rates of admiration of the Nazi Stepan Bandera, the repeal of labour laws, and the mass privatization of the country.
This is typical economic shock doctrine. If Ukraine wins, its people will be the new low wage manufacturers and workers for the world to use and discard for profits. If Russia wins, it's also not great at this point - they'd likely be contending with western funded guerillas, and who knows if Russia would actually reinstate the repealed labour laws and left wing parties, given that Russia itself is a capitalist oligarchy.
Yeah, what good things was Ukraine doing? Anything worth all those dead people? Of course not
Was WWII the US's fault? No it wasn't. Was it good they joined? Yes, you even agree since you think they joined to late. (And I agree they joined too let too) So that fits the qualifications of the first question.
Hitler was heavily inspired by American treatment of Native Americans and black people. Although not completely, he thought the one drop rule was a little too much.
Yes and eugenics was horrible. But are you saying the entirety of Nazi Germany is the majority the fault of the US? That's even more of a stretch than just following orders.
Edit: solely to majority to better reflect the question
deleted by creator
I assumed the question meant majority fault, since that's what I mean when I say something is someone's fault. Sorry for the sloppy wording. Majority share of fault.
WTF does “majority share of fault” mean?
We’re claiming the US was indirectly responsible for it, and directly refused to enter until it was clear the Soviets were winning to prevent a communist Europe.
This man literally has the entirety of hexbear up in arms trying to deal with the sheer intensity of his ignorance
Majority of fault is pretty hard to measure for this kind of thing but they were a significant inspiration for the Nazis which is enough fault for me
The apartide state of Jim Crow America founded on slavery and genocide? Yes, our evils going unpunished proved what could be gotten away with
Love that you completely ignored the part where the US involvement led to them brutalizing and murdering countless completely innocent civilians. That part is pretty inconvenient to your argument that they were somehow the good guys here so yeah it is a pretty safe bet to ignore it. I'd love to hear you defend it though I'm sure you'll do Uncle Sam proud
But it's irrelevant to the question. The question was whether it was good the US joined WWII. Even accounting for the atrocities, I don't know anyone who would say the US shouldn't have joined the war.
No the question was is there a time when the US was objectively good. You used WW2 as an example. And then ignored all the completely heinous shit the US did during WW2.
SIR, MY PUBLIC EDUCATION HISTORY CLASS SAID WE WERE HEROES AFTER FORCING ME TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLIEGANCE EVERY MORNING, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION DROPPING NUKES ON CIVILIANS, PARTICULARLY THE SECOND ONE WHERE JAPAN'S SURRENDER ALREADY WENT FROM INEVIETABLE TO UNDENIABLE AFTER THE FIRST. I AM A HERO BY VIRTUE OF BEING BORN IN AMERICA. A "FEW" HORRIFIC, CIVILIAN MASS MURDERS IS MY DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVELY GOOD.
But it can still be objectively good they joined even taking into account the atrocities. It doesn't need to be all good to be good over all.
I disagree. A Soviet victory without US involvement would have been objectively better.
deleted by creator
Whether something is good or not is inherently subjective, dingus
No, he asked if they were objectively good in that war, which they weren't even fucking close. At best they were a grey-moralist lesser of two evil, but the fact you conflate that with "good" is exactly why you'll never comprehend any situation with any nuance. In your mind it's always "WW2 USA GOOD GUYS SAVED WORLD" like some lead-poisoned brain damaged boomer desperately trying to live voraciously through low-rent nationalist propaganda. I'd say, yes, America was the lesser of two evils compared to Nazi Germany and Japan, and the fact that's the closest you can get to "good" and the political parties you need to compare yourself to, to look better in comparison to someone, proves Infamousblt's point.
The closest to "objectively good" America's actions has been in a situation is "well, it's not as bad as letting Nazi Germany take over all of Europe" and that's not good, that's horror.
That's just the largest example that comes to mind.
I thought the question was 'has the US done any good actions,' which would qualify WWII. If instead the question was asking 'has the US done any actions that are entirely and completely perfect' I would say no nation has.
deleted by creator
You want to explain that giant limbo to me? The US wasn't even in on the treaty of Versailles if that's what you're taking about.
american capitalists had a hand in funding hitler and mussolini's rise to power
So that makes them entirely the US's fault? Capitalists and communists in many countries helped cause their rise to power.
communists, well known for putting fascists into power
oh woe is me I seemed to have dropped this
Everything causes everything. Scare against communism allowed fascism to gain a foothold faster.
and because capitalists hate communism so much they immediately turned to fascism, that somehow makes communism the enemy?
"It is the heart of US policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to save democracy from communism." -Michael Parenti.
Everything effects everything. You can draw a line of causation from anything from reactions or trickle down effects.
bro then capitalism is more evil than communism, since it direct ties to fascism. You are proving me right with sheer idiocy.
how does this attribute any crimes to communism?
My brain is trying to process how monumentally stupid you are being.
Good luck!
i'll need it, you seem to just be on drugs at this point
Nope never done them
deleted by creator
This is now officially a tantrum
deleted by creator
No shit. Guess who pioneered this view of history? Fucking Marx
It makes you wonder what kind of people turn to fascism because they're scared of communism. I wonder. I wonder....
Who created these scares?
You're just saying that because "both sides" feels true to you. It's not, though. Communists in Germany were the bitterest opponents of the Nazis, before the latter even had a strong party formation. And as the first line of the poem goes, Communists were the first ones "they" came for (although this is usually omitted in liberal retellings".
If you've ever heard of Antonio Gramsci you know that imprisoning or killing communists was the first order of business under Mussolini.
You can name any country that went fascist, and we can point out where the capitalists were easing it along and the communists were fighting it tooth and nail.
Entirely? No. But they do bear a lot of the burden.
Probably the Italians and Germans were a bit involved too, obviously ww2 is not entirely the fault of America but they were some giant fucking dominoes that fell.
The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America, to say they weren’t in on the treaty is true but it’s sleight of hand ignoring the role US played in dictating the economic direction of Europe through its role as creditor.
Then, you had US industrialists funding and working with the Nazis as they rose to power.
This is an absurd take, regardless of its veracity (do you have a source?).
The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US, and there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans. The UK and France were harsh with Germany because they hated and feared Germany and wanted revenge after World War 1.
I have absolutely no doubt that you would be even more outraged if the US had indeed forgiven its wartime loans to Britain and France after WW1. I'm not sure what your angle would be, but it would probably be more persuasive than your current argument 😉
The book Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson gets into this in depth with all the receipts. It was common practice in Europe that debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven, so it was actually breaking with all precedent that the US demanded full repayment with interest from their allies, and the circular flow of payments from US banks to postwar Germany, to the European allies and back to the US is clearly documented and laid out by Hudson in his book. This is an arrangement that was intentional and beneficial to the United States at the expense of Europe, until it came crashing down when the financial bubble it created popped and the Great Depression resulted.
How can a take be “absurd regardless of its veracity”. Literally stating the truth is “absurd” if it reflects poorly on the United States? Do you find yourself overwhelmed living in such an absurd world (this one, where the United States is objectively a bad actor)?
"It can be cold, regardless of the temperature"
Thank you for providing a source.
The reason I say it's absurd regardless of veracity is because it was not a valid geopolitical option. The US was still pursuing an isolationist foreign policy in the eyes of the public, it would have been political suicide to forgive those loans. The fact that we got involved at all was already shocking to Americans, if we then waived repayment it would have been a national outrage.
Also, I that I highly doubt that the US decision to demand repayment of the loans is notably outside of the bounds of normal international conduct. I haven't read that book so I can't say for sure, but I have a hunch that you're making a false equivalency somewhere.
Perhaps this is the reason, because the US was less of a wartime ally and more of a savior. The US was under absolutely no military threat, and thus viewing the loans as part of some kind of collective wartime struggle is quite the stretch.
The U.S wasn’t really implementing an isolationist policy, and never has since its inception. (Certainly not prior to WW1 when they had just finished going to war with Spain to take over its colonies, nor during nor after WW1 when they sent troops to a different Latin American country every single year to impose their will). It was just brutal realpolitik.
“Isolationism” vs free trade and free markets, the US government and ruling class just does whatever benefits itself the most. Hence, other countries need to open up their markets to US exports post WW1 but the U.S. will simultaneously levy protectionist tariffs so that European goods can’t be competitive in the US market. Germany had no recourse but to borrow more money from US banks to pay their reparations, so that UK can turn around and give that money back to the US government. The only other way for these governments to meet their payments to the US was to impose austerity and wring the money out of their own domestic population (which they also did, also a contributing factor to the turmoil which eventually led to another world war).
I don’t buy this “aw shucks we would love to forgive the debt or interest but we just can’t sell that to our domestic masses who care a lot about fiscal policy”. They did it because it directly benefited them (the ruling class and their state). They made massive profits off of the entire arrangement. Nothing mysterious about their motivations there. A better topic of discussion is would the European powers agreed to pay up, when that actually went against their own interests (look where it got them!)
You'd be shocked to hear what this site's position is on most state loans in general, especially ones originating from Western countries.
I'm not sure that any positions taken by this site are likely to shock me at this point 😅
But sure, try me.
We advocate for the forgiveness of all IMF loans, as they are primarily a way of exacting concessions against governments of underdeveloped countries, privatizing their industry for the profits of multinational companies and cementing theor economies as subordinate.
One example is Haiti, where upon their independence France extorted them for tens of multiples of their GDP, purportedly for the "cost" incurred, and were in debt for 2 centuries.
Rather than providing net aid, the quantity of money going from the Global South to the Global North, yearly, is over 10% of the GDP of Global South countries.
We aren't too concerned with Britain and France getting repaid on any international debts when they're so far ahead, at other countries' expense, to begin with.
What the fuck does
even mean? How about “these countries were just destroyed by war and can’t reasonably be expected to pay”?
Governments can and do forgive loans when they feel it’s appropriate. The U.S. made a conscious decision to wield its creditor status without mercy to further crush Europe and solidify its own position as top global power.
Yeah which is why they should have told US to stuff it with its ridiculous demands for payment lol
See my other reply
https://redsails.org/the-international-origins-of-nazism/
At fault I was interpreting as majority. And it seems like people should be accountable for their actions even if they aren't entirely original.
How many American corporations did business with Hitler?
Was the US being in ww2 good? Probably not. Not just becoming a rogue nation and using WMDs on civilians but the money we stole from Europe went on to pay for us doing several genocides. So on balance it isn't great
lmao they put half the nazis back in power after the war and are now arming nazis in Ukraine
If thats the best you can find, then holy shit
You think West Germany was Nazi? I think they took a lot of the Nazis back for the space program.
you really just fell off the turnip truck huh
West German Government Was Full of Ex-Nazis After World War II
Is falling off the turnip truck morally good?
the new libsoc
First time was tragedy this time as farce
New site tag line
Of course that puppet state was staffed with Nazis, who do you think was the first head of NATO
But was the government Nazi? Since Nazi Germany had conscription, I'd image it'd be hard to find anyone in Germany who wasn't a Nazi. But as I understand it, there was actual systematic denazification that kept the government on track.
you have demonstrated over and over again that your understanding is woefully incomplete, almost cartoonishly shallow
Seems like you didn't have a good response to this point, would you like to try again?
It's not worth responding to blatant lies, West Germany did not have "actual systematic denazification", their government was staffed with Nazis and they literally had a Nazi general as head of NATO. This is akin to burying your head in the sand and complaining that people aren't helping you see.
There was no "systemic denazification". We killed a few figureheads, then put the rest back into power, and into NATO leadership. West Germany was a Nazi country.
The soviets did a much more thorough job of denazification. How did that work out for the people of east Germany?
Is Germany still a nazi country now? If not, when did it stop being a nazi country?
Are you asking about the political implications of denazification for East Germany?
I'd say that the fact that Nazis were effectively eradicated in East Germany is proof enough that it turned out well for them.
Or are you concern-trolling about the Berlin Wall or the economic underdevelopment of east Germany comparative to West Germany devoid of any historical context or something like that?
Yes.
Good, GDR was a much better place to live for the non-wealthy. Far better education, quality of life, women's rights, transportation, etc.
Are you just a Nazi? What is even your implication here? That nazis in power make things better and removing them is bad?
Seems like you don't have good reading comprehension, would you like to try again?
Huh?
All of germany living any sort of comfortable/wealthy deserved the axe, you could have replaced them with the victims/oppressed you terrible person.
Look up some of these Nazis in the BRD. We're not talking about conscripted soldiers. The people that are brought up check one or (often) multiple of the following boxes:
There were thousands of people guilty of stuff like this in all levels of the BRD government, including many the highest levels. This was normal. The Western allies could have hanged some top 10,000 of those responsible, easily, but they didn't. They let them out of prison, hired them, and helped them escape justice.
They did the same thing in occupied Korea with Japanese occupiers and collaborators. Put the fascists back in charge who had enslaved their countrymen. They did this everywhere. America merged with fascism it didn't defeat it, it's upgraded to level 2 fascism.
The Gehlen Organisation, which later became absorbed wholesale into the West German state as their intelligence apparatus, was literally just a bunch of Nazis headed by Nazi lieutenant-general Reinhard Gehlen.
Was the government Nazi? Well, that entire arm of the government certainly was!
Pretty sure camp survivors weren't. They would have needed new jobs so that would have been pretty a pretty good way to help fix things. Only we didn't want justice. We wanted people who were used to fighting the soviets. So nazies. We wanted them in power, just working for us.
Klaus Barbie has entered that chat. you know, the guy from the hit movie!
D-Day happened not because of some altruistic desire to liberate France but because the remaining capitalist states saw that Germany was neither salvageable nor willing to work with them, and something need to be done to stop the Soviets from liberating all of continental Europe and building a socialist bloc with abundant year round naval ports in the open Atlantic.
Prior to the war Nazi Germany was chomping at the bit to destroy the Soviet Union, and the Soviets wanted to take a wrecking ball to Germany, both for the sake of destroying the political epicenter of European fascism, and so they could keep pushing the revolution westward and take the entirety of the continent.
The Western alliance with Poland was an attempt at managing this rivalry, so that they could try to force this nearly inevitable conflict to happen on their terms, not Germany nor Russia’s. The West must have seen that if Germany won this fight and had their pick of whatever they wanted in Eastern Europe, France would end up with a monstrous neighbor that occupied the entire rest of the European mainland, and although Communism would have been uprooted from Russia, Germany could easily use its newly acquired land/resources/industrial capacity to double back and take on France. The goal of destroying the Soviets is achieved, but the Fascist bloc becomes the dominant faction of the imperial core and the anglo-Liberal forces are forced to either submit or try to hold out as just the UK and US against the rest of the world.
Now, if Russia were to win this impending Russo-German war, there was no way in hell Stalin slows his roll after beating Germany and stops at the French border— France and possibly Franco’s Spain would be next, and where does this leave the West? Unlike a German victory, the anglo-Liberal faction of the imperial core is all that’s left and they are stuck with the entire European mainland controlled by communists, an outcome they’ll do anything to avoid. With the shipyard of Germany and France and access to the open Atlantic, they can threaten anglo naval superiority and even plan an invasion of the British isles— and unlike Hitler, who represents just another faction of capitalism, Stalin and the communists are far less likely to give the remaining Western countries the option to accept subservience if they lay down their arms.
So the West find themselves in a position where if they do nothing in this coming Russo-German war, they are screwed either way, and although a Nazi victory is preferable, they figure that through geopolitical fuckery they can get involved and alter the tides. If they side with the communists, which god knows the Western governments broadly speaking do not want to do, they can at least manage the fall of Germany, and hopefully negotiate a post-war European order where the Soviets do not have access to the open Atlantic (i.e., ports that aren’t in an inland sea or the hard to navigate Arctic). D-Day was of course an attempt at taking back territory in France but more importantly it was the first step toward securing a foothold in Germany and making sure that there was a mobilised, battle-hardened force waiting to meet the Soviets so that a hard limit could be put on their Western advance. I don’t mean to say that no one wanted France back under a French government, or that there weren’t people in the anglo military commands and governments who were genuinely disgusted by the Nazis and the crimes committed continent-wide during their occupations, but to the cold, realistic, realpolitiking minds of the people at the top like Eisenhower, the primary goal was setting up the board for the next fight— the Anglosphere versus the Soviet Union.
US General George Patton was adamant that if he was allowed to, he could have taken American troops to Prague and secured Czechia for the West in the post-war order well in advance of the Red Army’s arrival. He was promptly informed by Eisenhower that he would doing no such thing. The post-war order had already been negotiated behind the scenes, and through strategically supporting their mortal enemies against a foe that really wasn’t much different than themselves politically or economically, the intact West had made sure that they also held at least part of Central Europe, instead of either Germany or the Soviet Union controlling the entire continent. So D-Day wasn't purely an anti-communist action, but was also crucial to the Western grand strategy of making sure the Soviets didn’t just keep steaming onward, and setting the stage for the Cold War in terms more favorable to the West.
based on comments by @FLAMING_AUBURN_LOCKS@hexbear.net
While there are aspects of that narrative I agree with, I think there's some pretty questionable claims as well.
What?? Even with support from the rest of the Allies, WWII was devastating for the Soviets, it required an extraordinary loss of life and resources to defeat the fascists. I'm not inclined to believe that Stalin would simply attack France out of nowhere in this timeline, and I certainly don't agree that "there was no way in hell" they wouldn't. What's your reasoning or evidence for this idea?
It's quite a big brained move to try to alter the tides by siding with the larger threat lol.
I don't think there's reason or evidence to suggest that the West found German dominanation all that preferable to Soviet domination. Losing is losing, and while the fascists would preserve and extend the systems of capitalist exploitation, it likely wouldn't be the same exploiters at the top. Germany posed a very real threat of dethroning and replacing the exploiters, which to the exploiters is just as bad as the system of exploitation being dismantled.
This narrative also neglects the Soviet perspectives of the time. The Soviets were more than happy to accept help from the Allies and if anything were critical of them not taking more territory faster. It was only once victory was a forgone conclusion that the rush to sieze land really kicked off. It's also worth noting that the UK and France got involved before any fighting between Germany and the USSR broke out.
Wasn't purely anti-communist?! It's pretty absurd to imply that it was primarily anti-communist, the Soviets wanted D-Day to happen.
I find this whole narrative is very oversimplified, speculative, and not aligned with the actual history.
deleted by creator
That's a totally different scenario to what's being discussed. We're not talking about the USSR moving into France in the historical timeline. We're talking about a timeline where France and the UK sit back and let Germany duke it out with the USSR, and then, after a long, bloody war, the USSR emerges victorious, and then decides to invade France for some reason. In this scenario, there is no French resistance because there is no Nazi occupation of France.
France was still France. How Long before the ussr answered the calls for aid from the French comunists?
The USSR never invaded West Germany post-WWII, so with the benefit of hindsight, probably never.
However, if France and the UK were so concerned about that, then instead of going to war with the USSR's #1 enemy, they could have sat back and built up their strength while letting the two fight. Then, once in this timeline the USSR finally defeats the Nazis singlehandedly, they could attack the USSR themselves, since it would've been considerably weakened while they were at full strength.
The reality of British and French motivations were more complex than a singular focus on defeating the USSR through the 5th dimensional chess move of forming an alliance with them. What they wanted was stability. They wanted to maintain their "rules based international order" (with themselves on top). The idea was to keep Germany on a leash as a guard dog against the Soviets, and they cut him an incredible amount of slack, just straight up handing him Czechoslovakia in spite of being in a formal alliance with them. But Hitler figured he could just get away with whatever and it turned out that there was, in fact, a line.
In this scenario there is no west Germany because the ussr extends out fast past the border the americnas wouldn't have been there to create. The USSR would have been the only industrial power left in Europe which as a region would have been even further destroyed. So just pushing into the territory of the old empire to fix everything would have looked like a pretty good idea especially since it wouldn't be risking a nuke from the US to do so.
I know, I'm saying that historically, the USSR did not expand westward into West Germany so it's unlikely to think that they would expand westerward into France in the hypothetical. Certainly not inevitable.
Are you considering France and the UK to not be industrial powers? The areas that would be destroyed in this scenario are limited to territories occupied by the USSR, since we're talking about the UK and France staying out of the conflict.
Not sure why you're assuming the US doesn't get nukes here. Am I to believe that Germany would fall more quickly if it was just focused on fighting the Soviets?
Honestly this whole premise is completely ridiculous. It's not like Germany was easy pickings for snatching up territory at the start of the war. What you're doing is looking at the very end of the war, when Germany was defeated and everyone was rushing to seize more territory, and trying to extrapolate those conditions back to the start where they don't apply. Going to war with Germany just to make sure the Soviets don't get the territory means a prolonged war with a very real threat of losing for literally no reason when they could've just stayed out of it and mopped up the pieces later if that was their only goal. It's nonsense.
Yes, it is a counterfactual that didn't happen it is nonsense.
You have to consider that at the start of the war the USSR and Germamy have done the fewest number of genocides. So we have to project or knowledge backwards here.
I'm not talking about the counterfactual being nonsense I'm talking about the original claim about British and French motivations for going to war with Germany. I don't really know what the number of genocides have to do with anything.
deleted by creator
But even if it was self serving as well, was it good they joined the war?
We could be living in a reality where continental Europe was all part of the USSR, so no.
deleted by creator
Dumping shitloads of weapons into a proxy war does not make you the good guys.
It does if the other side is undoubtedly the bad guys.
You seem to be viewing this like its sports, I don't fucking care about who you think are "undoubtably" bad guys, as far as I'm concerned America is worse. It's getting people killed, for lines on a map, and you guys brought this on.
Why is it the US's fault that Russia decided that Ukraine should be theirs? Does Russia have a moral obligation to not be relegated to a regional power?
You know that Ukrainian cities have been getting shelled for like 8 years now, it's just that now it's not only the Ukranian government doing it.
We are taking about good and bad, and whether it was bad or good that Russia invaded. Those are moral questions. So yes, we can ask whether the actions of a nation are moral.
No we are not. You are talking about good and bad because that's the level you engage with politics.
I say it's asenine to attribute moral character to the citizens of a nation of millions unless you're really prepared to have your glass house targetted.
Are Americans guilty of its crimes? Should people consider Americans immoral because of all the genocides, slavery, and ongoing mass incarcerations?
Are you incapable of comparing things? Yes the US has problems. I and others are working to fix them. That doesn't mean morality is worseless.
lol all I see is a decent into fascism, you seem to be doing a shit job
Hmm, I see abandoning morality as bad. Actually, whataboutism to just call everyone bad is a common tactic used by neo Nazis to say Germany wasn't that bad.
you also repeatedly handwave US war crimes further in the comments, morality is nothing to you
I'm trying to acknowledge that they are terrible while still staying on topic. What would you rather me do? Not condemn Russia because the US has done totally unrelated bad things? That doesn't make any sense.
this is literally a post about USA bad, where you are harping "russia bad" out of nowhere. Russia is not the point of the post in any way. You are the one off topic.
Also the US is related to almost every conflict on earth since the creation of the CIA, and are definitely ones doing bad shit in ukraine.
I said the US was good for helping Ukraine against Russia. People responded with 'actualy Russia good,' so I responded to them. I don't disagree with the post that the US has done bad things. I disagree with the comments that the US can has and will always do the morally worst thing possible, so much so that all other countries look great by comparison.
Hexbear is agreeing on one thing: the war in ukraine is bad, and america is directly contributing to the starting and continuation of the conflict. They've been funding Nazi movements in ukraine since literally right after the end of ww2. The US used ukraine to poke the bear on purpose, it didn't think russia would react, and it did. Now all the empires are at war.
but you have crossed the fucking line
how dare you compare the two. Russia is no fucking friend, but you dare compare it to the USA? The American Empire? You ask us to side with them on anything?
America has done the most morally despicable things at almost every opportunity. They tried to starve cuba by dropping the swine flu on them. They pardoned the japanese and german fascist government officials to establish puppet states to use agianst the soviets. They fucking used officials and data from Unit 731 (a division so evil it will make you almost throw up just reading it) to kill people in vietnam! You think they came up with all their chemical warfare out of nowhere? America has killed countless african anti-colonial movements and chosen to side with the apartheid regimes of South Africa and Israel at every opportunity. They helped their buddy france to maintain their colonial hegemony over the african people, and then literally tried to assassinate the prime minister of France when he didn't want to kill as many people. They literally hired a Nazi concentration camp leader called "the butcher" to become a leader in NASA! THE BUTCHER! They hired a man named "hitler's favorite commmando" who took part in a mission to rescue mussolini at one point. HE WAS THE NAZI SOLDIER! He was hired by the CIA to be deployed on anti communist hit squads.
They've couped every nation in south America at least once, and most of the ones in central America. The leaders were always ones that were trying to do internal buildup programs, did basic workers rights protections, or respected democratic process and let communists in government if they were voted in. Fidel and the sandinistas are the only ones to have survived. Not for lack of trying, the CIA tried to kill Fidel 600 times over the course of his life. Of those in the majority they did get, did they replace those leaders with law abiding, human rights loving individuals? Nope Fascist military juntas and criminal syndicate leaders. They would carry out reigns of terror that would KILL MILLIONS! OF COMMUNISTS! Of anyone adjacent to them! Friends, colleges, friends of friends, it didn't matter! Millions dead!
Indonesia they supported a fascist junta leader to lead a hostile takeover of moderate Indonesia. Because they dared to have communists in government, to have a progressive government, to side with the interests of their country over that of NATO or anyone else. They directly contributed to this, and then that man killed us all. They told him to kill every last dissenter and communist. There used to be millions of communists in indonesia, local native movements and city workers alike. They killed every last one of them along with their family. The PKI is fucking gone, not because they became unpopular, but because they shot them all. They literally had to close fishing in many areas because the fishermen would only drag up corpses. Rivers would be dammed up by the sheer amount of bodies clogging them.
The US did it, it wouldn't have been possible at all without the US providing millions in funds to the coup efforts, for the guns and arms they supplied. They used agents to sabotage the government and military.
Genocide has never been an exception, for the US, it is the rule. These are grassroots movements the world over fighting for freedom and the US has been making sure to kill and break every single one.
We call it the Great Satan, and we aren't kidding when we say it.
Sankara, Allende, Arbenz, the Spanish republicans, the Greek partisans, millions of Vietnamese, 20% of the population of Korea at least, Turning Libya from one of the most prosperous countries in Africa into a fucking slave state, ruining Iraq (who used to be the most progressive and prosperous countries in the middle east), Nasser in Egypt, the United Arab Republic, they killed fucking Malcolm X, and that's just a fucking taste. I'm not even joking, the crimes of the US against communists (real and not) and true freedom, are too numerous to mention without wasting several thousand pages.
So excuse us for taking a small bit of glee in watching, as someone finally takes direct action against the US and its NATO allies. As someone on a similar power fights the US directly for the first time since 1991. As we watch their war machines explode on the field. As we watch the colonies liberate themselves. As we watch the Empire die from their blunders. We will see every downed plane as glorious vengeance. Every billion dollars wasted in futility as a bit of sooth to the losses of 91. Every Wunderwaffen tank be shredded, instead of rolling over weaker powers like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last cries of the soviets, while killing itself, also strikes the face of the American beast. The last cries of Marxism Leninism's greatest project draining the Empire and its vassal. The final strike to begin the collapse was stricken by the consequences of its own actions. China and Russia, corpses of our past, are using our weapons to finally kill it. Our only regret is that the Soviet Union itself isn't killing the USA and Europe.
My nation of Hawaii was stolen from the Hawaiian natives, and now they are supposed to be grateful. To wait. To expect for you to deign to give them back the home you stole. TO WAIT FOR THEIR RIGHTS!
EVERY DAY I SEE AMERICANS PILLAGE THIS LAND! BURN THIS LAND! POISON THIS LAND! Its not even mine, but that doesn't lessen my hatred.
What Russia and China have done is pennies next to the crimes of America. Especially to communists. Now we may vary on Russia, and we may debate the war, but we are united on this: The day we side with America will never happen, ever. America and the Nazis are the eternal enemies of the Communists. We will never side with Ukraine, because we know America is not fighting for good. Because America is interested in using blood to whet the wheels of its imperial machine. If there is no one who hates America on this earth, it means we are no longer on this earth.
I will never hate any nation more than the USA, it is almost impossible. I hate it so much that I stopped being suicidal because I had to see it die. One day my fear of death will be overshadowed by my hatred of America. My ideology can be described as anti American and anti fascism in its entirety. If it hates American and fascism, I am immediately sympathetic. If it turns its guns on America or its vassals, I am immediately sympathetic. I sided with communism because that is what America fears most. I side with communism because that is what fascism fears most. America is the primary source of fascism, it is the fortress of capitalism. I believe in it for more than that now, but it is still a core of my being.
Russia is an enemy, one that I will rejoice to see fall to a socialist revolution. I seethe every time I see it remembering the world we lost. I hope for the death of every single leader in office. I hope or the purge of the traitors in the KPRF. I see it and wish for a rebirth of a nation I know will never come back. I have no allegiance to it
But America...
I don't want it to fucking exist. In any form.
You are peddling for sympathy you will not find, I hate everything in America, everything about it, with every bit of blood and bone in my body.
Could you tell I was listening to Der Heimliche Aufmarsch (Funny I can spell that) while writing this?
I starred it it was that good. You are now forbidden from deleting your account please thanks
I was literally thinking of it while reading. lol
Now tell us how you really feel 🤣
But in all seriousness, this is an unhinged rant.
And yet I don't begrudge you for it, I fully understand how the system in which we live engenders this type of deranged rebellion. But still, I regret to inform you that even if the US were to cease to exist tomorrow, the global problems that are the true source of your anger would simply be exacerbated.
white child says what?
comrade, the socialist revolution solves the main problems of capitalism. Socialism is our main goal to transit towards communism.
The death of the United states would allow a complete freedom of the communist ideals. The propaganda centre and fortress of capitalism would die, and socialist movements would pop up all over the globe. With the main idiots in the west broken, or themselves socialist, then we can start fixing all these issues. Climate change, colonialism, the lot of it. Of course I realize it won't be perfect, but it will undoubtedly be better.
tldr: read marx, before its too late
I wish I still believed that. But it requires a great deal of faith, and it's a bit cavalier to destabilize all of human civilization without hard evidence that communism will actually work.
Enlightenment thinkers espoused a similar level of faith in the transformative power of free trade and democracy, as opposed to mercantilism and monarchy. It was indeed a transformative power, but it arguably took us even further away from our ideal society.
Everybody and their mother knows capitalism is flawed, but the viability of communism is still very much an open question. I personally think it's worth a shot, but having blind faith that it will definitely be better is a bridge too far for me. As soul crushing as capitalism is, we also tend to take for granted all the problems it does do a good job solving, because we have never experienced any other social system.
In all seriousness, everything she said is true, fuckface
Don't shoot the messenger
The US backed the coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014 which actually caused most of this mess. Plus you know, destroying the USSR through 70 years of aggression and hostility known as the Cold War. If the USSR was never destroyed, the world and Ukraine would both be far better off today.
Are you able to say "Russia was good for helping the Taliban against America"? I want to see if you're arguing in good faith or not.
Morality is subjective and based on one's surroundings and differs not only from culture to culture but by the individual. It's a really piss poor way ti analyze mass movements or geopolitics
Applying a moral judgement to millions of people based on the actions of their government is silly.
If you insist otherwise I'm going to start applying the same standard to you for the crimes of the ameri-anglo empire.
Well, if we have to speak this way, Russia’s position is the more defensible position. I sympathize for the people of Ukraine and want the war over.
The best thing the Ukrainian government could do is make peace and let the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics join Russia, since that’s what its citizens want.
If you think that’s unacceptable, then the US should return Texas to Mexico before it has a right to speak on this.
deleted by creator
brb relaunching the contras
Define please? What do you mean?
referencing one of many far right terrorist organizations propped up entirely by the USA
Could you link something? I've never heard of them.
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/special/9712/appa.htm US gov investigation excerpts
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html in depth university papers
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00806R000201090033-3.pdf leaked CIA docs
https://www.britannica.com/topic/contra-Nicaraguan-counterrevolutionary lazy brittanica article but read it
Coca cola death squads? Operation Gladio? Operation Paperclip? Pinochet? All exist only with US subversion
Thanks btw
fuck, you are so politically illiterate. spend more time reading and less time opening your mouth
We know
Please?
You can just Google shit dude. Do the bare minimum some time. It's embarrassing how confident you fucking dorks act given how catastrophically ignorant and helpless you are at the same time.
but how could I inconvenience others if I do the work myself?
I develop my entire worldview through adversarial conversations on the internet. If you don't spoon feed me sources for even the most well established facts my ego will starve and I'll say something bigoted but pretend you're the asshole for taking offense. Yes I'm a liberal, how'd you know?
The comment was very ambiguous, and I had a feeling they had something in particular in mind. If they showed the one they were thinking about, we could better talk about the same thing.
The Iran-Contra affair is an infamous part of American history. It's not exactly a hard to find thing.
oh shit I linked the things about the contra terrorists in Nicaragua
deleted by creator
"Contras" is not ambiguous. That would be like calling the "Mujahideen" ambiguous. It's a real group with a name and historical record, and the US government funded them because they were fighting eViL GoMmUniSm.
Oh yeah, the US funded and armed the Mujahideen (aka precursors of the Taliban) too, by the way. Same story different name/continent.
Uh oh stinky
?
?
What does your comment mean? Are you just calling me an ape, or are you referencing some other argument/meme?
What does your comment mean? Are you just calling me an ape, or are you referencing some other argument/meme?
What does your comment mean? Are you just calling me an ape, or are you referencing some other argument/meme?
Oh, that I understand!
Lmao. Nice
I'm saying you're shitting the bed if you think USA joining wwii or perpetuating their current proxy war was done for altruistic reasons
I'm saying it's good. I'm not saying it's done for entirely altruistic reasons. Those are separate things.
and I'm saying you're shitting the bed playing defence for the great satan
They said
You said
y'know what I take it back, i'm calling you an ape
I'm saying the US has done horrible things. But saying it's literally the worst thing possible and never can will or has done anything approaching beneficial pushes you right into embracing even worse authoritarian and cruel governments.
BRUH do any of these 'worse' authoritarian and cruel governments hold a global hegemony over others?
The world would be a far more prosperous place if the US were wiped from it
They would if they could. Brittany did during the age of sail, Spain before that. China would love to become the only global super power.
I think the world would be worse off with Russia or China as the only super powers, as they have even worse democracy than the US, so their governments will can be further out of line with the people.
And multiple super powers isn't very good either, last time during the cold war it caused tones of loss of life from proxi wars. And direct war would be even worse.
USA is far and away worse than China, it’s not even close.
What makes you say that? Because the US has been more militaraly involved up to this point?
The United States, from its very inception has been and is an expansionist, imperialist project. From its inception the tools it uses to gain and maintain dominance over the rest of the world include genocide, slavery, mass murder campaigns, invasion, bombing, covert support for military coup and dictatorship, brutal suppression of all opposition to capitalism and the U.S. led global capitalist order. It has more of its own people locked up in cages than any other country in the world, both as a percentage and in total numbers. It spends more on military and policing than any other country. Simply put, no country is more brutal or heinous in its authoritarian ways than the United States of America.
deleted by creator
has anyone asked to see your penis yet
No
You?
Hogout or logout, liberal
Your using that word like an insult
deleted by creator
you're*
deleted by creator
See my other Ukraine comment
But was it bad they joined? Even if it was self interested, it's still a good thing.
deleted by creator
That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I'd have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you've expanded them.
deleted by creator
Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn't altruistic. So it isn't fully objectively good as someone above objected.
Now you're changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn't objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.
My mom is a nice lady, and I love and respect her, so hugging her is good.
No, someone above was arguing that the US joining WWII wasn't good because it wasn't altruistic. I was applying the same logic.
Edit: see here
At what point do you cool off? You've been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you've engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you're right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?
And no. The person you're referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn't objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There's a distinction.
Good question. I had hoped I would give an argument that the US is not incalculably worse than authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. But y'all seem to really like them despite reality, and there are way too many of you to talk to.
And this isn't good for my sleep schedule, so I'll manually defederate by blocking all your subs. Bye, thanks for being reasonable
It's fucking wild how many times you've run face first into examples of not knowing what you're talking about and being 100% wrong about and then continuing to say shit like "despite reality" as if you have any fucking idea what that reality is.
You were probably going to get banned for all this debatebro bullshit anyway
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It is 0500 in moscow
In what world was it 05:00 in Moscow when you posted that?
I’d buy 11:00 in Moscow, but not 05:00.
Oh good, we're helping murder more people! YAaaaaaaay
Ww2 would have gone better without us in it.
China probably wouldn't agree. The shit Japan was doing over there was even more inhumane than what the Nazis were doing in Europe.
I dunno. I am not sure we made huge differences in that score. However I know our being in the area to meddle after that is probably not worth the assistance
didn't soviets take out manchuria and korea in like a month
:amerikkka: supplying weapons to :ukkkraine: is actually a pretty big L
Love to supply “lots of stuff” like cluster munitions and depleted uranium to Nazis