Putin sends cannibals to fight in Ukraine
Russian media report that the president pardoned two convicted cannibals because they fought in his war.
www.politico.eu
Where many other countries in Europe, among them some of our immediate neighbours, have openly socialist parties as members of parliament or government, the German left is mostly made up of very distinctly bourgeois Social Democratic parties, with actual worker parties being completely irrelevant. There's also just a general disregard for socialists and communists role both in terms of being victims in Nazi Germany as well as in terms of their role in the resistance against it. And the treatment of East Germany's history post annexation is a can of worms all on its own.What ? Where did you get that idea ?
A lot of rural areas were indeed thrown under the bus at the time, but the fact remains that Ukraine was subject to stringent and extreme measures that other areas were not. It was uniquely targeted, and the distinctly enormous death toll there corresponds.That the Sowjet Government deliberately denied aid to the Ukraine during the great famine to quell dissent there is a popular theory, but I don't think there's quite enough evidence to go on to tout it as fact. During that famine a lot of rural regions have been thrown under the bus to assure sufficient supplies for industrial centers, especially those deemed essential for defending the country against the imminent invasion. I know the German government has, fairly recently, acknowledged it as genocide but we're not exactly unbiased in that regard. Germany is probably still one of the most dogmatically anti-communist countries in the western hemisphere, next to the USA.
MotteAre you denying that a famine occurred at all (as was the contemporary Soviet government line), or just that it was intentionally weaponised (the position the Soviets switched to after the outright denial became untenable)?
and Bailey.It did so on Holodomor Remembrance Day: marking the time the Soviet Union under Stalin weaponised mass starvation to crush Ukrainian aspirations of independence.
The poorer farmers didn't like colllectivisation any better because they rightfully believed that just meant they basically lose everything and are at mercy of whoever eventually distributes or organizes the leftovers.It was about the wealthier owners of farms objecting to collectivization, and one way they did that was burning crops and slaughtering livestock
Well, no. The Ukrainian idea of independence was a thing, and the Soviet high command were well aware of that fact. After all, the Soviets spent several years violently removing Ukraine's independence around the end of WW1. Whilst you can fairly say that Ukrainian independence might not have been the top of Stalin's motivations at the time of the Holodomor, I don't think you can entirely ignore it either. For instance, in the 1930s the Soviets also became more repressive and restricted the local cultural activities of Soviet republics, plus purges, etc.The conflict in Ukraine at the time wasn't even about Ukrainian independence. It was about the wealthier owners of farms objecting to collectivization, and one way they did that was burning crops and slaughtering livestock. Whatever you believe happened, characterizing it as "weaponized mass starvation to crush Ukrainian aspirations of independence" is just eating the whole Nazi boot.
Ohhh, pretty interesting that you're including both the existence of the famine and the fact it was intentionally weaponised as the 'motte'-- easily defended and justified. Glad you agree on that point, and have at least not swallowed that particular Soviet denial.The conflict in Ukraine at the time wasn't even about Ukrainian independence. It was about the wealthier owners of farms objecting to collectivization, and one way they did that was burning crops and slaughtering livestock. Whatever you believe happened, characterizing it as "weaponized mass starvation to crush Ukrainian aspirations of independence" is just eating the whole Nazi boot.
That is not how that works.Ohhh, pretty interesting that you're including both the existence of the famine and the fact it was intentionally weaponised as the 'motte'-- easily defended and justified. Glad you agree on that point
Huh.That is not how that works.
This followed those letters from Soviet officials in charge of Ukrainian collectivisation begging central leadership for famine relief. Looks like Stalin recognised there was a problem! So what was done? Something to relieve the mass starvation, surely?Stalin to Kaganovich said:The main issue is now Ukraine. Matters in Ukraine are currently extremely bad. Bad from the standpoint of the Party line. [...] If we do not correct the situation in Ukraine immediately, we will lose Ukraine.
What do you mean by 'losing' here? Full loss of the four districts claimed by Russia? Or inability to reclaim the territory currently occupied by the invader?I am calling it. Ukraine has lost.
Ukraine has lost a lot of troops and the average age of their troops is around 40+.What do you mean by 'losing' here? Full loss of the four districts claimed by Russia? Or inability to reclaim the territory currently occupied by the invader?
Dialling back offensive operations during winter just makes sense for both Russia and Ukraine because offensive operations become so much more costly and dangerous.
OK but you didn't answer my question.Ukraine has lost a lot of troops and the average age of their troops is around 40+.
'We're losing': Ukrainians reel from war chief's stalemate warning
In eastern Ukraine, where another gruelling winter is descending -- along with it a likely freeze in major frontline movements -- one Ukrainian soldier had a grim assessment of the conflict.www.france24.com
We should have given them F-16Cs sooner.