This is the first time I've read something in the US press about India that goes any deeper than "Modi bad" or "Modi like Trump".
The man is the most popular leader on the planet and the leader of the world's largest democracy. Americans deserve more balanced reporting about India.
The author is Canadian, has previously spent a decade in India and is considered an expert on India and the Asia Pacific region. You're getting a different take on India because you're reading from someone that actually understands the county and is not beholden to US media giants.
Reporting about India in the US is totally dominated by the likes of NYT, Washington Post and their like. They absolutely hate Modi's guts and so now, it is starting to get a to a point where any story about India has to include tirades about "Modi bad", "Hindu nationalism"and other fear mongering about India and especially Hindus. They are so deranged, that this kind of slanted coverage extends to even their cooking section when they publish Indian recipes.
Take this latest incident with this Sikh extremist who was murdered. Without a shred of evidence they are trying to pin it on Modi. Oh btw, these Sikh extremists are responsible to thousands of deaths in India, including the blowing up of Air India 182 in the 80s which killed 329 people.This was the single largest terrorist incident involving an airplane until 9/11. This is an existential issue for India. But NY, Wapo etc. are so blinded in their hatred for Modi that they have completely omitted these facts in their coverage. In their eyes Modi is already guilty and must pay a price. To hell with one the most important strategic partnerships that the US has.
EDIT: I am going to link a substack article here which details how the Canadian govt (at that time led by Trudeau's dad) was complicit in allowing the Air India 182 bombing to happen.
Also, a detailed Hudson Institute paper that lays out how these Sikh radical (Khalistani) and Jihadi groups are supported by Pakistan, even in the West, to further destabilize India.
All due respect to Bari and her team (who are doing good work), but I wish people could get their information from A free press, not THE Free Press. Democracy depends on it
Americans need to throw off their egregious parking of their tanks on other peoples lawns. You're fine as individuals; but collectively swivel-eyed loons who are a threat to everyone else.
The rest of the world can start pitching in on defense, both men and money. It does not always need to be US men and women fighting and US taxpayers footing the bill. Until then we will park our tanks wherever we want.
It's the sociopathic Neoliberal MIC warmongers, NOT the American people, but a large segment of the population is quite credulous to the outright false constant major media propaganda. To that degree, they are at fault.
To understand this, Sikhs have fought Muslims since the Mughal invasion in 1526. Sikhs were a pacifist group, until they were being slaughtered. A Guru said, "Fight" (Nanak, IIRC) and they did. That is the origin of always carrying a dagger to be ready. Sikhs have been the backbone of the Indian armed forces. They have done much of the dying as well. They can be trusted when fighting against Muslims on the frontier. Sikh's are 1.86% of India's population, but 8% of the Army. Sikh's are a key part of India's armed forces because they can be trusted to fight and fight effectively. Sikh's don't cut and run, and they don't secretly work for the enemy.
It's a little bit like the "deplorables" in America who are Christians doing most of the fighting and dying in America's wars, but much more complicated. The big difference is that in India, historical roots go back to the dawn of civilization on this planet. Sikhism is an offshoot of Hinduism (as is Buddhism, and Jains, etc.) Sikhs are relatively new for that part of the world, dating back 600 years. This is roughly the age of Lutherans in Christianity. (Buddhism is older, being 2500 years old.)
Some Sikhs want a separate nation. They see that Muslims got their lands by fighting. They see that primarily Hindu India won't give them their own homeland. India, for good reason, does not want to lose its Sikh population. If America had a movement to create a Christian homeland in, say, the Northwest, it could perhaps look a bit like this. Terrorism (asymmetric warfare) is a kind of warfare.
To call those acts of terrorism an "existential issue" for India is a bit much. Our 9/11 attacks were provocative, but they were not an existential threat.
However, what probably IS an existential threat to India is the prospect of losing the Sikh members of their armed forces. This would require renovation of the army, and it would mean that Muslims would become the most powerful part of the army in India. That would make the army itself an existential threat to India.
It is not "a bit much" to say that SIkh separatism is an existential issue for India. India was not born in 1947. The civilization has already been divided by the Brits/Muslims when they created Pakistan.
Importance of Sikhs to India goes well beyond the Sikhs who join the Armed Forces. Sikhs are as much a part of Indian history, culture and society as another group, Hindu, Buddhist or Jain etc. Hindus and Sikhs intermarry, worship in each others' temples, celebrate each others festivals. All the Sikh gurus were Hindus by birth. Radical Sikhs don't like to hear it, but Sikhism is like 99% similar to Hinduism. It is an offshoot after all, just like Jain and Buddhist religion.
The main similarity is that both are mostly non- existent. iny minorities with little support within their religious communities, Like Irish-Americans, who funded the IRA, the diaspora in Canada & California lean more to Khalistan than Sikhs living in India.
Also, a former Indian government promoted Khalistan-supporters, in a cynical attempt at triangulation. (A bit like the US supported Bun Ladin.)
Indian security agencies realized they had helped create a criminal terrorist gang,
But Pakistan's ISI has adopted this baby, with funding, training & logistic support.
Great reply and I am more educated now as a result. I also want to hear Based Yuvi's view. I've been to India a few times and get the overall picture, it's the context and local subtleties that are really useful.
A lot can be said about Islamic terrorism in India. It is a centuries long saga. But the modern variant is mostly driven by Pakistani sponsored groups causing trouble. These attacks were mostly ignored by western media/governments in 90s and 00s because Pakistan was considered an ally during the Cold War and GWOT. No major Indian city which was did not get bombed or attacked during these years.
Sikh separatism is not something that became an issue until the late seventies -early eighties when the Congress Party (who are Modi's political opponents and (mis)ruled India for 70 years after its independence) decided to prop up some really unsavory characters for political gain in Punjab. These elements ultimately ended up challenging the writ of the state and committing crimes and extrajudicial killings. Pakistan, always on the lookout to create trouble in India, supported them to the hilt with money, logistics, training. Things came to a head in 1984, when the then PM Indira Gandhi ordered the Army, to attack the Golden Temple (Sikhism's holiest shrine) in Amritsar where the leadership had ensconced themselves. Hunderds were killed and the temple was FUBAR'd. What was a fringe radical movement became a full blown insurgency. The PM was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. In reprisal attacks, Congress party workers killed thousands of Sikhs in riots across north India. Ultimately, the insurgency was put down after a decade but the cost was paid in thousands of innocent lives.
Today, Sikh separatist sentiments exists mostly in the diaspora communities which became the refuge of radical Sikhs from who escaped those turbulent times. They have taken over the Gurudwaras (temples) and preach non-stop hatred against the Indian state and even Hindus directly. Pakistani support to these elements continues to this day.
The western governments have at best looked the other way or even supported these elements, for various reasons. Successive Indian governments have asked their Western counterparts to rein in these troublemakers as they collect funds, threaten Indian diplomats and citizens, run mafia gangs back home in Punjab etc. but to no avail.
India is rising. The people I have met there are thriving in their own country. Food is plentiful and cheap. Sure, there are shanty towns, but the people who live in them are not lawless. Only weird things for me: sacred cows roaming the expressways and no apparent fear of what we in the west would consider dangerous. People are friendly and industrious. Treaudeau is a radical leftist authoritarian. How much more will Canadians need to see of that to get rid of him and bring back a leader who selflessly works for Canada again?
And who would that be? Polievre? Trudeau isn’t an authoritarian leader, the position of Prime Minister is a very strong one, in majority government. It all depend on the NDP and Jagmeet to stop supporting him. Not me in my French Québec and my fellow Québécois who didn’t vote for him either.
Americans know nothing about Asia, if they do it is because they have been on a Coach trip where they don't have to communicate with the people and stay in luxurious Hotels. I have seen this in Sri Lanka. It's an "I was here moment." Just the same as in Europe.
I have to say that I have come across young Americans travelling on their own and most are living the life of each Country).
Hindhu Nationalism is similar to Buddhist nationalism in Sri Lanka.
Both are serious threats to the people who have contributed to the growth of both nations. Sikhs/Muslims/Tamils etc.
The American public know NOTHING (this includes you Presidents/congress/senate).
There are many types of each religion. Theravada Buddhism rules Sri Lanka. They are mostly looked after by the Govt. and poor who provide them with food and money.
IF Americans want to be educated go there on your own and talk to the people.
Now Sri Lanka is destroying the History Books so that the Tamils are annihilated.
I see that you’re trying to convey a lot of information in your posts but I don’t feel smarter after reading them. Nothing you said convinced me that “Modi is bad.” If India is not a democracy then please enlighten how that is the case. Does it have elections like Iran or Russia? From what I understand that is not the case. Less hysteria please.
Yes, factions of Hindus were violent in India to dominate votes. Most of that was directed at Muslims. We don't have an equivalent, because Muslims in India still have their most important shrine, which is built around the broken pillar of the most important Hindu shrine when the Mughal army invaded. There is religiously mandated violence on the Muslim side, for centuries, and terrible history.
Sikhs vote. But Sikhs are 1.86% of India's population. Their votes don't accomplish very much. Sikhs are roughly 8% of the Indian army.
Imagine if the USA army was 8% pureblood native Americans, and they served on the front lines. In the USA, 1.3% (a similar fraction) are that. Would they have a vote? Yes, technically they would. Today, native Americans have a vote. But they don't see much for it.
Would the government of the US want to keep them as part of the army if this was the situation in the USA? Not allow them a homeland of their own? Probably so. Would that make the US government's president a bad person?
Trump is probably the ONLY US President bar Washington that I could say wasn't a mostly evil fuck who needed to be put down vis the rest of the world. You need to wind your necks in; you don't seem to grasp how disliked you are, and for good reason, in the rest of the world.
To be entirely fair and balanced: Modi bad and Modi like Trump does sum up a lot of important information on this autocratic, fundamentalist jackass. Whether we need to be careful, require his cooperation, and whether everything he does is not wrong, are separate issues.
Biden has screwed up a lot of things, but I don’t think Indian democracy is one of them.
Did he claim to have inspired Gandhi at some point? It’s hard to keep track. I know he survived a kitchen fire. And lived in a synagogue, or was it a mosque?
Niall Ferguson wrote a book about the Indian colonial period that is absolutely contrary to the NYT party line. I enjoyed it but I don't remember the name. When I discussed NF's views with a colleague from India (who now lives in Canada), he agreed with those views, at least as I presented them.
Actually, (dare I say it) the New York Times podcast The Daily had an episode about it. It was before Trudeau made his public statement. The episode focused on who Nijjar was and the history behind the movement he supported, and acknowledged that the investigation was still going on.
Having been in Canada (from the states) for 5 years now, I was surprised Trudeau got re-elected when he did last, but I guess I shouldn't have been. Canadians are a remarkably compliant people and seem to be pretty on-board with 'wokeness' or whatever you want to call it, making the Trucker's protest all the more remarkable.
If you’ve been here for 5 years then you should already know that the Chinese govt (the enemy of India) has been working to keep him in power, interfering in our elections.
Therefore all of this makes perfect sense, Trudeau serving his client.
Are China and India really enemies? They had some border clashes in 2021, but from what I can tell recently, they've agreed to better cooperation. Xi and Modi had an "aside" at the 2023 BRICS summit.
You don't have to be adroit atm. American foreign policy has always been crass and knuckle headed. Right now the Biden Admin is going for gold in American Stupid.
Not always. I think pre American Civil War (see I know the US is not the only country to suffer through one) not so much. But then the states themselves were dominant. Afterwards you may have a point as the push toward federal dominance began and has continued unabated. Teddy Roosevelt's Imperial Cruise is a stark example. Yikes.
Wow Jenny, I, too, love Indian literature and have probably read all the same books. However this does not mean I am so educated on India and all other Americans are too stupid to understand or be curious about her history and complexities. You should take a nap instead of coming on here to angrily bash everyone who you feel hasn’t read enough Rushdie novels. Everyone else wants to have an earnest discussion on an interesting topic and you’re just all over these threads feeling superior about the “hundreds” of books and authors you are so familiar with that you can hardly remember any of them. Lol
Put it this way, if their mutual frontiers weren't so high-altitude and marginal, it would have gotten very, very, nasty decades and decades ago. After India got the bomb, it would have gone nuclear almost immediately.
If you saw how many people in Toronto are wearing masks, still and again, you would not be surprised by Trudy's double-digit approval numbers.
The "blame India" curveball is not only a distraction from his other problems, but also a bone that he threw to Jagmeet Singh, his Khalistani coalition partner who is the only reason why Trudeau is still in power. I'm surprised that Rupa hasn't mentioned him.
Trudeau has won the last two elections with 32.6% and 33.1% of the popular vote, the two lowest totals in the history of Canada going back to 1867. The Conservatives had higher vote totals in both elections.
But I've been reliably told that the electoral college is terrible because it can lead to minority rule, and that a parliamentary system is so much better!
You won’t hear that junk from anyone on the prairies in Canada. Our oil and gas are the economic engine that drives Canada, yet we are always marginalized in Ottawa because there is no mechanism that recognizes geographic areas, or low population jurisdictions.
Touche. Whatever issues one may have with the US political system, I never could understand why people thought a parliamentary system was so much better.
The US is the presidential exception. Parliamentary system isn’t the issue, this is the ballot mode that is. Parliamentary is more open to coalition and discussion and less polarized. Trudeau will fall, he’ll fall democratically.
"Parliamentary is more open to coalition and discussion and less polarized." I don't see that at all, what I see are splinter parties wagging the "coalition" dog. Witness Italy, which has had, Wikipedia tells me, 69 governments in the 76 years since World War II. Makes no sense to me.
And the level of polarization is only minimally a result of the political system in play, and much more related to the intensity of the ideological struggle at any given time. Don't forget, the current high level of polarization in US politics is a recent (last ten years or so) development.
The last two elections produced minority govt’s, with the Libs and NDP. The Liberals are very good at winning seats in high population areas like Toronto and Vancouver, where there are more seats. They will squeak by and win seats by maybe 1,000 in Toronto and get wiped out by Consevatives in places like Alberta, where Conservatives win by 20,000 votes.
No, but the combination of a first past the post system and the assignment of ridings strictly by population (which gives the large cities the lion share of the seats) makes possible to lose the popular vote and still win the election. The sad part is that Trudeau promised to change that, but then he didn't
His solution was a ranked ballot as he understood that no Conservative voter would put the NDP second and no NDP voter would choose a Conservative second, leaving Liberals to hold power forever as everyone's second choice.
Bravo, I've been describing my fellow Canadians as "compliant Canadians" for years now. "Go along to get along," that's our motto, alright. "I stopped actually thinking years ago... I trust the government to do my thinking for me!" Sigh. It's depressing, actually.
I was under the impression that he actually wasn't "re-elected"; he only got about 35 percent of the popular vote for prime minister, but his party was re-elected to lead the government and the party put him in. Similar to the U.K., the voting public in Canada doesn't elect the country's leader, the winning party does that.
To be fair, in the US we don't elect the President either. The states do it. I am fairly sure that is a state wanted to and their constitution allowed it, it could just not hold an election for president and give their electoral votes however their state constitution allows.
How can anyone who knows history, especially country leaders, not realize in WWII that Russia was one of the Allied powers which means they fought against the Nazis, so this man fighting the Russians was of course, fighting for Germany/Hitler, against his own country. It is inconceivable to me that Canada's leaders and Zelensky did not know this. It is a disgrace.
Oh, Zelensky knew. It is not at all a secret in Ukraine that their WWII heroes were Nazis. They hated (and still hate) Russia enough that it's not viewed as a problem. The Azov Battalion is not really so much neo-Nazis as a symptom of people who never *stopped* being Nazis.
In other words, Putin (whom I don't support!!!!!) wasn't just blowing hot air when he talked about Nazis in Ukraine. Of course he tried to overstate the seriousness of the problem. But he wasn't making up something out of whole cloth.
I think Zelenskyy was blindsided. He would have assumed that such guests are properly vetted, so he wouldn't have expected a blunder of such magnitude.
Most Canadian politicians really are that ignorant of history. But the deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland, absolutely knew who Hunka was because her own grandfather was a Ukrainian Nazi. She should have stopped it, and I can't speculate about why she thought that it wouldn't blow up the way it did.
There is an interesting podcast on the Hub (which looks at Canadian politics from a right of center position) regarding this issue. Mind, right of center in CN is not very right.
Zelensky knew for sure. Any Ukrainian who fought "the Russians" (USSR) in WW2 did so in a Nazi unit. In the case of Hunka - the Waffen SS 14th Grenadier Division. But they have statues to Stepan Bandera there, so...
You are factually incorrect. The USSR and Germany were allies for 1 year and 10 months during WWII. It was very possible to fight "the Russians" and not be a Nazi. For instance, as part of the Polish army, while USSR in concert with Germany were conquering it. Or as part of the Ukrainian partisan movement in 1939 and 1940 as the Russians were summarily executing Ukrainians and deporting them to Gulag.
I agree that it’s possible that a Ukrainian (USSR citizen) fought against the USSR in the circumstances you described, though the comparative numbers compared to Ukrainian collaborator units under German control are way fewer.
Of course, those are well known. They even had their own generals. They generally met bad ends since they were turned over by the Western Allies to the USSR after their surrender in the West. Dutch, Belgian, French, Norwegian, Estonian, Latvian, etc…lots of German occupied nations filled out German volunteer units fighting the Soviets. Many because of fervent belief in anti-communism, which is understandable.
But the subject here is a former Ukrainian SS soldier being honored in the Canadian Parliament. Knowing that so many Ukrainians served with the Germans against the Soviets that should have been the first question asked.
This comment is unnecessarily intemperate and insulting. Disagreement with points of view is one thing. Calling someone “a brainless twit“ is another thing entirely.
Its funny how a lot of people make fun of liberals as snowflakes. Yet, when one of the main cohort uneducated here gets called out for spouting patently ridiculous falsehoods, everyone rushes to defend her feelings, rather than attempting to figure out the facts. Presenting false facts is not having a disagreement on a point of view. Presenting false facts is just that, a wrong understanding of a complex topic. Which deserves to be called out as such. When you indulge people talking out of the a** about topics they don't have a rudimentary understanding of, you end up with the gender-as-a-spectrum and safe spaces.
oh boo hoo. She calls my people "nazis" for fighting the communist scourge with what meager choices we had available at the time, and you're bleating on about "intemperate"? Who is the snowflake here?
That period in Eastern Europe is ugly as f**k. Lots of people initially joined up with the Germans against USSR - because by then, the Soviets have been cleansing out and deporting millions of us for nearly two decades. So, please, fold it into four corners and shove it where the sun don't shine!
For the product of the American education that you are presenting to be, here is a Cliff notes version:
Sept. 1 1939, Hitler attacks Poland based an agreement with USSR made in Aug. 1939 to split it up.
Sept. 17 1939, as Poland is fighting Germany on its western side, the USSR strikes Poland in the back on the eastern side, quickly occupying that part of the country. Germany and USSR carve Poland up along the lines of their Aug. 1939 agreement. They have a joint Red Army/Wehrmacht parade in Brest. There are pictures, feel free to Google.
1939-1941 USSR commences a cleansing program sending hundreds of thousands of people in Poland that are the wrong class (i.e. have an education) and political persuasion (i.e. not Communist) including ethnic Ukrainians living in eastern Poland, to the Gulag. This gets slowed down/interrupted when the Germans invaded the USSR in June 1941, and reengages when the USSR reconquers the territory of Ukraine from the Germans and resume their class/ethnic/ideological cleansing well into the 1950s.
Needless to say ethnic Ukrainians resisted, fought against the USSR occupiers and their repression for years. So when Russia attacked in 2014 and 2022, it simply triggered historical memories within the Ukrainians. So, contrary to your simplistic understanding, it is in fact very possible to be a Ukrainian, to have fought the Russians, and to not be a Nazi.
If I may make a suggestion, quoting the Putin apologist that is Tucker Carlson and his ilk to educated people simply presents you as a simpleton buffoon. I'd suggest stop doing that unless that is in fact the impression you want to convey.
Certainly. I wasn't responding to this particular individual's situation, but to seeing several people here confidently proclaim that unless a Ukrainian was fighting for the Soviets, he was a Nazi. It just felt necessary to disabuse lay readers of this simplistic notion confidently proclaimed by ignorants.
Actually no, Russia and Germany were not allies during WWII. The pact you made mention of wasn't a pact that made them allies (fighting on the same side). The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression treaty wherein Russian and Germany would not attack each other.
The pact also quietly partitioned Central and Eastern Europe: the Germans were supposed to do their own conquering of Central Europe, while the Russians expanded the Soviet Union. The Germans broke the treaty 1 year and 10 months later when they launched Operation Barbarossa.
ETA: Calling someone a brainless twit, and then getting the wrong historical facts doesn't make Celia look like the brainless twit.
They literally had a military parade together, after carving up Poland from east and west, working in concert to strike Polish forces from both sides while coordinating with each other. That is some mental gymnastics you have to go through to manage to NOT call them allies. But rather than your strenuous interpretation, lets just rely on primary sources, such as the Pravda headline reporting on the topic. Here, I even googled it for you https://www.litfund.ru/news/11692/
Pravda. You mean the newspaper owned and operated by the Soviet Communist Party? That Pravda? Pravda. All the news that Joseph Stalin saw fit to print.
You made the argument that they were not allies. I provided a factual rebuttal to show that your argument is incorrect. You are now saying what exactly? That Pravda did not speak for Stalin, who considered it a military alliance?
Come on, try harder, this used to be taught in 10th grade World History. The Second World War started on Sept. 1, 1939. Germany and USSR had an alliance that ended by the fact of Germany invading USSR at 3:15 AM on June 22, 1941. For that 1 year and 9+ months they were allies. Its not that complicated. Even for an American.
Oh, FFS, this is so dumb I'm not even going to explain anything to you. Suffice it to say that this is exactly the version of the "truth" that the communist party drilled into us during history lessons in USSR. Now repeated by lunatic lemmings like you in the West.
Speaking of shallow seabeds... Stalin never believed that pact. He predicted it would be broken, and he was correct about that, although it was faster than he expected. It was done to buy time. Meanwhile the slave labor camps of Siberia were populated, and solved the Hobbesian problem of lazy slaves and motivating intellectual work by systematically killing those who didn't give it their best, each year. That industrial might of Siberia is how WW2 was won. Stalin had, however, killed the army officer corps who could prosecute a war well. The rest is the grim history of the Nazi's slow loss to Russia, millions dead, and then the Iron Curtain. Still today there is justifiable paranoia about invasion of Russia by Europe.
The Nazis were received as liberators at first. But it became apparent that they had worse designs on Ukraine than Stalin. Some did join in with Nazis successfully.
A ramble: Always wondered how one could be a US communist after Stalin (the great hope of US communist) joined with Hitler who fought against German communist to gain power.
Because Communists, the foot soldiers, are basically stupid; and because those that wern't just footsoldiers were being run by the Organs, or Organs themselves. FDR was waddling; quacking; and swimming like a duck the whole time.
i'm a conservative, you dingbat, I don't believe in triggers, safe spaces, and gender woo. I do, however, have a brain and desire to learn. Unlike many people on here, clearly
Oh, Zelensky knew. <She has no way of knowing that. Can't call it a fact.>
It is not at all a secret in Ukraine that their WWII heroes were Nazis.
<This is not true. The Ukrainian Nazi myth of part of Kremlin propaganda. It has the same veracity is calling the US a Nazi-loving country because there are some people that march with tiki torches in the US>
They hated (and still hate) Russia enough that it's not viewed as a problem.
<This is not true. More than 50% of the Ukrainian population had a very favorable view of Russia. Until it started shelling residential buildings with artillery, that is>.
The Azov Battalion is not really so much neo-Nazis as a symptom of people who never *stopped* being Nazis.
<Ukrainians as a people were never Nazis. There were some sympathizers. (Like Charles Lindbergh, and Joe Kennedy and you know, the whole American Nazi Party. But no one was ever dim-witted enough to use those facts to call Americans Nazis.) It is factually incorrect to project that on to the whole nation. Especially given that Ukrainians suffered more than Russians, proportionally, from the Nazi's. Making this claim is just beyond the pale factually and ethically.>
In other words, Putin (whom I don't support!!!!!) wasn't just blowing hot air when he talked about Nazis in Ukraine.
<He was, see above about the tiki torches thing>
Of course he tried to overstate the seriousness of the problem. But he wasn't making up something out of whole cloth.
<He was, that's what he does. He takes pride in lying, its a professional skill that he is very proud of. One has to be a certain kind of stupid to take anything he says at face value at this point, after 25 years of documented lying>.
See, everything she said was inaccurate. May I suggest changing your news sources away from Russian shills like Tucker Carlson or Douglas MacGregor (or that idiotic comedian that goes on Joe Rogan talking about Ukraine and Russia). Those are highly educated men (not the comedian on Joe Rogan) that are highly compensated for spreading bullshit. People that then repeat it for free just come across as grossly ignorant.
Back to Trudeau: His authoritarian tendencies are where so-called progressives are headed with their demonizing, censoring, and attacking those with whom they disagree. Trudeau would have us believe that he is never wrong and always blames others for his mistakes. Sound familiar? For a very good discussion of this latest debacle in Canada listen to Walter Kirn and Matt Taibbi’s podcast this week.
Just don't forget that Hitler and Stalin signed a non-agression pact (that incuded provisions for dividing Poland) before Russia became an Ally. It was all really complicated in Ukraine before WWII -- they had virulent anti-Semites while also having thriving Jewish populations, much of which were decimated by German and Ukrainian Nazis. Nothing is clear-cut and straight-forward about the Ukraine.
Yeah, that statement holds true for the US. They (USA) had virulent anti-Semites (especially in the State Department) while also having thriving Jewish populations (NYC, Milwaukee, LA, etc.). Luckily, the American Nazi Party didn't get to decimate those.
That's not a good analogy. While there certainly was (and is) anti-semitism in the US, and especially in the State Dept., the Am. Nazi Party had no power and, to my knowledge, did not engage in seriois violence against Am. Jews. Progroms against Jews occurred regularly in Ukraine and Beloruss in the early 20th c., and that level of violence continued through and after WWII. Moreover, the violence against Jews in the US was never sanctioned by the government as it was in Ukraine. Not saving European Jews during WWIi is not an equivalent to the slaughter of Jews committed by Ukrainians at that time.
I don't think you got the point I was trying to make. Let me try to be more clear about it. There is a tendency to call Ukraine and large part of its population Nazi, based some seemingly on-point descriptive facts. However, those same facts are very applicable to the the US, it has virulent anti-Semites in government, it has its own <national> Nazi Party that marches in different places in the country, yet no one calls the US a Nazi country based on these facts, but does call modern day Ukraine Nazi based on those same "facts".
The statement you made above is not factually correct. If you replace Ukraine with Russia, it will become factually correct. State sanctioned anti-Semitic violence occurred in the Russian Empire, in its different constituent parts - Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova (Bessarabia), etc. Ukraine could not have sanctioned violence against the Jews as you claim as it was not a sovereign entity to do so. It was a part of the Russian Empire and then USSR. There was no slaughter of Jews committed by Ukraininas at "that" time. There was slaughter of Jews committed by Russia, USSR, Germans, USSR again, which was carried out by Russians, Germans, Belarussians, Poles, Ukrainians, Tatars, Latvians, Czechs, Hungarians, etc. The US specifically turned around ships full of Jewish refugees trying to escape and sent them back to German-occupied Europe to face certain death in the gas chambers (lets not sugar coat with "not saving European Jews" the very specific and clear policy choices to send Jews to certain death made by a very anti-Semitic US government, they didn't have to do much saving as you put it, just to let those poor people disembark). The French would turnover their Jews to the Gestapo to be sent to extermination camps, etc. It was a wholly European and US affair, everyone played their part. Except that, you know, Ukraine wasn't a sovereign country to make government decisions on anti-Semitic policy, as opposed to the US or Germany or USSR, which were and did make those decisions.
I do understand what you are saying, but I'm fairly certain that you are incorrect on at least 2 grounds. First, to say that the Ukraine did not exist in the 1930s is not accurate. The Ukrainian people lived in the geographic area known as Ukraine for centuries. The USSR formally defined the borders of the Ukraine in the 1920s when the USSR was setting the borders for all the Soviet states based on ethnographic, demographic, and cultural factors. See "Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge & the Making of the Soviet Union," by Francine Hirsch. By WWII, the Soviet state of Ukraine encompassed most of the world's Ukrainian population. Certainly Ukrainian state employees and actors participated in was crimes against the Jews; I believe there is no dispute that Ukrainian military and law enforcement helped round up Jews and send them to their deaths. As I previously stated, I understand that not all Ukrainians took part in the war crimes against the Jews, but enough did to cause the slaughter of a huge percentage of its large Jewish population.
Second, to compare the actions of the United States government to that of the Ukrainian government is repugnant and suggests to me that perhaps you've been reading some revisionist history that is simply not accurate. The US is not perfect and made mistakes, but it was largely responsible for reversing the tide of German victories, defeating the Axis powers, and liberating the few Jews who survived the Holocaust. (I understand the Soviet Union also played a significant role in defeating Germany, but not one as great as the US.) Whatever wrongs and mistakes the US made, they pale in comparison to the huge amount of good the US did during WWII to win the war and then rebuild Europe. The Ukrainian state supported the slaughter of a large part of its sizeable Jewish population and lacks a record of mitigating efforts that could potentially off-set its war crimes.
The US welcomed approx. 2 million Jewish immigrants in the first quarter of the 20th century, a huge number given the population at the time. Few other countries were as welcoming to the Jews as the US, and the only ones that came close to the US, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, could not protect its Jews from Hitler. Among the millions of Jews who were welcomed by the US were my grandparents and I would be fool if I were not eternally grateful to the US for that.
Again, your first premise is borne of incorrect understanding. Ukraine was not a state. The state was the USSR. Ukraine was an administrative part of that state. The USSR was not a federal system like the US (it was also not like the EU, which you appear to perceive it to be). The policy was set at the USSR level, not at the Ukraine level. For any official to attempt to set policy at Ukraine level was a sure-fire way to end up in the Gulag, as that would be perceived as a direct attempt to undermine and subvert the monopoly of the Communist Party of the USSR to set policy on anything and everything in the USSR. The fact that this needs to be explained tells me that your understanding of the subject matter is extremely limited.
Second, I did not compare the actions of the US government to those of Ukraine (again, you can't compare it to Ukraine, as the US government as a sovereign state could set its own policy, but Ukraine could not). I simply wondered out loud if your prickly insistence on calling out, and overblowing, every perceived sleight from Ukraine towards Jews extended to the examination of US actions in bringing about the destruction of large numbers of Jews during WWII. To me, that role is more egregious, because again, the US could set its own policy and chose not to, but Ukraine did not even have the option of setting its own policy. I hope you see the difference here. Its like the laws on the duty-to-act. They apply to a 25 year old who is considered an adult, but they don't apply to a 14 year old, who is considered a minor.
Thirdly, " (I understand the Soviet Union also played a significant role in defeating Germany, but not one as great as the US.)". This quote is just beyond ridiculous, and tells me you have a less than rudimentary understand of the topic. This is the equivalent of saying the Civil War in the US was won in the West. No. The West was an important area of operations with repercussions for the wider war, etc. and provided an opportunity for Grant to come into his own. But that war was also going to be won or lost in the East, where the overwhelming majority of belligerent forces were situated. And here someone like you comes along and says, the Civil War was won in the West, the Eastern theater (I don't know, like Sherman's March to the Sea) played a significant role in defeating the Confederacy, but not as great as the West. To any serious student of the Civil War that would just identify the author of such a statement as a complete naive on the topic. (On a serious note, compare and contrast Operation Bagration with Operation Overlord in terms of number of troops involved on both sides, number of munitions, etc. to get an idea of what the war in the Eastern theater was like. And then take heed that Bagration took 3 months to put together, not the 2.5 years that Overlord did.)
So no, the Ukrainian state did not support the slaughter of Jewish population as there was no Ukrainian state. That basic foundational fact you got wrong. Plenty of ethnic Ukrainians participated in all sorts of war crimes against the Jews, just like plenty of Russians, Belorussians, Poles, and every other nationality in Eastern Europe. And plenty Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainins, Poles, and every other nationality in Eastern Europe helped them. But as a matter of state policy, no, Ukraine didn't have one, as again, it was not a state.
I am happy that your ancestors landed safely in the US. My Jewish grandparents only got there in the 1990s, having gone through the German ghettos, guerilla warfare to liberate their homeland, and a lifetime of discrimination in the USSR. So my understanding of the topic is informed by a lifetime of study of that time and place as a History major, plus a lifetime of conversations with my grandparents, parents, etc. who have lived through it.
Agreed. When I heard the speakers introduction of this man I was shocked. All of these people are claiming they did not know his background and he was not properly vetted. The speaker introduced him as someone who fought for the Nazi’s, at least to anyone who is not as ignorant of history as a 2 year old. There is no way that the speech was written and reviewed without someone realizing this and anyone with a half a brain listening in that chamber should have put 2 and 2 together.
The Soviet Union was, unfortunately and stupidly, allied with by the W.Allies. The SU invaded Poland, Galicia (where Hunka comes from) was part of Poland annexed to the Ukranian SSR. Which was been being genocided by Stalin previous to his alliance with Hitler and invasion, with Hitler, of Poland. WTF would you do in that situation?
Not stupidly. It was cynical realpolitik. The allies should have turned on Russia near the end. Churchill would have been happier with that. But, the US couldn't demonize uncle Joe. And the huge number of communist sympathizers in US media etc. made it politically unviable to turn coat.
Trudeau probably did not know that Hunka was a Nazi; after all, he's incompetent. Trudeau DID call his fellow citizens Nazis during the trucker's protest. That is far more damaging to Canada and the Western world than mere stupidity.
i think so too , but she is drastically underestimating how much carrying Trudeaus water after all the things that have happened is going to stick to her. She will likely be considered unelectable as PM by many in the party due to her deep loyalty to JT. She had a shot a while back and probably could have made moves behind the scenes to oust him, but chose to stay loyal publicly. I don't see how she could be viable as a party leader in a general election after so much has happened. The Libs will need a complete overhaul after the JT era.
I agree with BJ Dichter (trucker convoy leader; see Triggernometry interview on Youtube): Trudeau is typical of a raft of Canadian politicians (in all parties) who are just not good enough. The best and brightest give politics a wide berth. We’re not the only country to suffer from impoverished leadership options and we pay the price every day. Painful!
Before we get too carried away about Trudeau's shortcomings, we should look in our own backyard. The male model, er, Governor of California Gavin Newsome is getting a lot of press about being the Democratic candidate for President should our current Leader of the Free World get lost leaving a stage and not be found. Newsome is basically Trudeau without the accent. Watching him preen about what a great job he has done as Chief Executive of the 6th largest economy in the world indicates one of two things is true: He is either the world's most clueless twit or the glibbest liar. His response to the reason gas is over $7/gallon in California is a classic: "Yeah, it's terrible. Those oil companies are really screwing us." Don't snicker too much about Trudeau. That level of leadership (?) may be coming soon to a White House near you.
Gavin Newsom is acting just like Trudeau. Same sort of guy. Manipulative politician unhinged from the people and without a moral center that is visible. All you need to know about Trudeau is in how he flushed Rota, blaming him for what he had done.
Lots of low-information voters would vote for Newsom just like Trudeau because he's "good looking". I just get creepy sociopath vibes out of both of them.
Yes... Nelli Bowles just wrote about "liking him" and I warned: that's how we ended up with JT. "The hair, the socks, the 'sunny ways'"... come on people, we're better than this! Why do abject failures (San Fransisco, mass outflow from California) always manage to fail up?
I just posted a comment about this on TGIF. Although I want to believe she was being sarcastic, the voters fall for superficiality every time. We might as well be back in Junior High.
You have to dig a little deeper into Trudeau to truly understand this, which is ironic as it is the complete superficiality of the man that is at fault. He probably wasn't aware that some Ukranians fought for the Germans, and much less that some or most of them did so to liberate themselves from Stalin and his famine, making their moral position a heck of a lot more complicated than even which socks he should choose (and if you know your Justin, you'll understand that).
That superficiality is his trademark. Why women in the cabinet? Because it's 2016. Peoplekind. Etc etc. All while breaking conflict of interest rules, trying to influence justice by involving his own attorney general in a politically-motivated non-prosecution, and then sacking her despite her being female, indigenous and, worst of all, competent. We've watched this clown apologise for everything, but do nothing to change it. Make an entire psychodrama with flags at half mast for months over a Canadian genocide that did not happen, and then threaten to pass a law criminalizing expressions of disbelief in that supposed genocide. He has screwed up our economy for decades to come by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to throw at anything that might buy a vote because he thought that "modern monetary theory" was a real thing and not an old mistake exemplified by the Weimar Republic. But if you live in a reliably Liberal area you won't see that cash, as you already vote his way. That's why Nova Scotia is about to become an island as the crappy low dyke keeping the highest tides in the world out of the Chignecto Isthmus is about to fail but he won't spend a penny on it. And if you don't see that you have to be vaccinated to sit by yourself in a truck cab for 12 hours a day you'll get your bank account frozen and criminal charges. He has not just been a bad prime minister, he has been a disaster. And as his sins mount up, Canadians are becoming ever more hungry—who can blame them?—for an opponent willing to say anything more extreme in the opposite direction. Frankly, the Conservatives would win the next election with a moderate socialist platform, so unpopular is Trudeau, but instead we are getting into slightly deranged territory with PP, who will be our next PM.
I have long believed that when one party goes extreme (leftwards or rightwards), the correct policy for the opposition party is to simply be less extreme, rather than move far in the opposite direction as they usually do. That way they keep all their own voters, and vacuum up the doubtful from the other side. But as soon as Justin goes more woke, PP gets more rigidly rightist and so on. What a mess!
There is nothing "far-right" about Poilievre. His policies are moderate - he's not touching abortion or public healthcare, he wants to build housing rather than curb immigration (I wish he would curb immigration), and he wants a smaller, less authoritarian government. If that's far right, sign me up! In fact, I'm already signed up.
This made me chuckle. PP as a populist, far right leader? Not even close. He’s just another career politician who senses the frustration of the vast majority of Canadians. If anyone thinks, good or bad, that he will usher in a new era of politics in Canada, they are sadly mistaken. He might be sharper than previous Conservative leaders, but he’s no radical.
The claim was that hundreds of native children had died of neglect at a Catholic school in Canada. Our woke useless Pope even issued an apology. The first body has yet to be found.
The problem is that the more letters and numbers they add, the greater the percentage of the population that falls into the whole category of "marginalized" people. What the heck is "A" after all? Aromantic? Asexual? Probably at least 25% of women over 50 might be inclined to "identify" as that. And what is "+"?? No-one really knows what the alphabet soup is any more. Just stick to LGB, we know who they are and they legitimately fought hard for their rights. The rest of it is just hangers-on.
I love Canada and, as an American, I do not presume to tell our cousins to the north how to run things. But, having spent a fair amount of time in Canada recently, I do wish for a PM and provincial governments less interested in public pronouncements and more interested in good airports that can handle baggage and connecting flights, good roads that get fixed in timely ways, and--how I can I say it?--a more can-do spirit in how people approach their work in both the public and private sectors. Canadian government showed greater zeal for ticketing elicit grocery shoppers during lockdown--and make no mistake: Canada would still be in lockdown if some politicians had their druthers--than in ensuring the the productive resumption of business, life, schooling, community, and commerce. Canada is a kinder but also more passive North American nation. To stay kind it needs to be more effective.
A dirty little secret about Canada is that one of our past times is making fun of you Americans . Not a single day goes by that you will not read a story in our MSM that could be titled: “ look at what those stupid Americans are up to now”.
We’re polite, but not behind your back.
Our national broadcaster, the CBC is particularly bigoted against you.
Thank you! If this is the "real" Mitch Horowitz, I really enjoyed your recent appearance on the Duncan Trussell Family Hour. Looking forward to reading your new book. :)
Interestingly, Canada (very similar society to the US immediately next-door, just 1/10 of the population) had 1/4 of the Covid epidemic of the US. 1/4 the number of Covid cases, and 1/4 the number of Covid deaths (per capita). Now you’re welcome to say that all our “freedom“ in the US is worth more than staying alive and not dying from Covid. But it seems from an epidemiological perspective, they were doing *something* right in respect of all the people who didn’t die or get seriously ill.
Canadian here. I don't have all of the exact figures, because they varied greatly by region. We may have had a smaller lethal effect from COVID, but our medical system, which is very different from the US (not so much in practice but in how treatment is prioritized, allocated and accessed because we have universal health care) was heavily burdened and unfortunately we had an entire wave of delayed and deferred treatments that negatively impacted patients waiting for cancer treatments, surgeries, primary care, etc. Only the most critical (emergent) cases were treated, in most cases. This was because the system was PRIORITIZING Covid cases over all others - so sadly, "pushing" other patients away.
Certain communities of medical professionals tried to raise the alarm on how back-logged the system had become - one example, they raised the issue of the increased incidences of advanced cancers as a first-time diagnosis because people were having such a hard time accessing primary (family doctor) appointments throughout much of the crisis.
So, yes, we are a country with many similarities to the US - but also differences in how we approach medical systems in general, obviously. But in the end, Canada fared no better and no worse than many peer European countries, many who have somewhat similar systems. But while our numbers may appear better on the surface, compared to the US - they also came at a cost - the effects of which are still being felt (we are still working with surgical backlogs and deferred treaments in 2023). It would be interesting to share that data, too - which we are still collecting.
I can't comment comprehensively on the outcomes in the US - but the Canadian approach had its own set of flaws, its own cost.
I don't know the number - but I do know a lot of people whose access to healthcare was negatively impacted because the priority was COVID - I brought this up because although I do support universal health care, and I can't say what country did things exactly right with respect to Covid (except maybe Sweden that maybe did the best, overall because of their approach), it caused a lot of "downstream" impacts, particularly with a system like ours, and those effects still linger. I am not anti-vaxx and had elderly and immune compromised people close to me - but since the comment I was responding to was around how Canada fared better than the US, I think it's important to be transparent. I seriously wonder if this data will ever come out - although at least people recognize the system is backlogged and there were these negative impacts. But I wonder just how bad things got -not just the US, but Canada is living in a time where little criticism is tolerated and you are immediately criticized as a "Trump loving conspiracy-theorist" if you raise these important issues (LOL - I am not a Trump supporter).
Sweden has other stupids to make up. They've just reached the point of having to call the army out and put it on the street because of bombings and murders. Yes they did better over Covid but other than that they are one of the most deeply derp countries in the EU.
Those are good points. I warrant that vax rates--higher in Canada (to its credit)--were more decisive than prolonged lockdown. Canada was slower to adopt the vax but its public may have been more open, which I applaud. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60380317
Applause not called for. It is a fact that the vaccine was not even tested to see if it prevented transmission before the rollout. It was under emergency use authorization and was liability free, despite Pfizer’s previous record fine for health care fraud. A recent study from the Cleveland Clinic found that the most vaccinated are the most likely to test positive for Covid. Several other countries have reported the same (negative efficacy). Worst of all, myocarditis and other serious complications including death from the Covid vaccine are being systematically concealed from the public.
Rupa, another excellent article. Speaking as a Canadian, I’m confused how our leaders forgot that Canada and the Soviet Union were allies in WWII, and if you were a male Ukrainian or ethic German living in the Soviet Union at that time, your choice was conscription to the Soviet army or volunteer for the German army to fight the oppressor. But, according to Rota, Trudeau and Zelenskyy, Hunka was a freedom fighter against Russia?? The stupidity and carelessness in Ottawa is unbelievable. Canada accepted many, many European immigrants after WWII who had to make tough choices during the war. I’m not willing to judge people placed in situations I cannot bear to imagine.
My issue with your post is about tough choices. A legitimate tough choice is:
1. Do I send my son to work in Germany because we are starving?
2. Should we flee east to Siberia?
But plenty of Ukrainians were happy to help the Germans murder Jews, for a sack of potatoes or sugar, or for free. Previously, the word pogrom became widespread after violence towards Jews in the Ukraine. So yes, you can judge some actions of people with less nuance.
Yes, I take your point. I guess what came to mind is the terror and tragedy Ukrainians lived through during the Holodomor genocide in the 1930s, even resorting to cannibalism to stay alive, or selling body parts of their recently deceased family members. (Look it up on wikipedia if you are unfamiliar with that tragedy.) Then, ten years later, these people see a chance for freedom, although misguided. With the little I've learned from first-hand accounts of survivors of Stalinist tyranny, I'm not sure that all of us would turn out to be heroes when placed in their shoes. This is not a defence of violence, only a recognition that we all have the capability for violence.
My family is from there, I don’t need to look it up.
I think the Ukraine has historically been the most anti-Semitic place on earth. Maybe because they were never expelled like in Spain or England. I just think that culturally or religiously Ukrainians had even more engrained animus toward Jews. The stories of cannibalism are horrid from that time period. But persecuting Jews was just somewhat standard.
Other than this I very much agree with your overall Canada assessment
If you claim to be from there, you should probably be aware that the word pogrom originated from czarist Russia in the 1880s. Here is what 5 seconds on Google can get you regarding the etymology of the term https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC . It works wonders in preventing you from coming across as having no clue what you are talking about. Note how the word Ukraine is not mentioned in the article. (Although in true Russian fashion, they do talk about the race riots in the US as pogroms).
I did not say that the word originated from Ukraine but that it became widespread after violent incidents in the Ukraine. Your link literally reads as this:
“The word entered many European languages after the famous anti-Jewish Kishinev pogrom.…the word “pogrom,” in modern history, Jewish pogroms in the South and West of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries became especially widespread”
The South and West of Russia referred to the Pale of Settlement. Which intersects with present day Ukraine and parts of Poland. Kishinev is in Moldova.
You are truly a wonder of a dumbass. But of course you linked to the Russian Wikipedia.
I guess you place Kishinev in Ukraine? Did you matriculate in the US?:) The South and West of Russia wouldn't refer to Ukraine. Poland and Belarus was the West of Russia at the time being referred to. And the South of Russia usually refers to the Caucasus, and the Russian Black Sea coast. Referring to Ukraine as the South of Russia would be like referring to Arizona as the South in the US... across the oceans, it may seem to be the same, but to someone that is up to speed you just come across as having no clue. So no, none of that is related to Ukraine. Keep on being ignorant.
What's wrong with Russian Wikipedia? You have some alternative sources or facts that contradict this article?
But do we know this guy’s story specifically? I heard he was part of an SS unit, but do we have knowledge that he did anything other than kill Russians?
Making legitimate “tough choices” does not include joining the Waffen SS, whose prime mission was the brutal extermination of Jews. It was well known then. To volunteer for the Waffen SS was not just to sympathize with Jewish genocide, it was wanting to be part of all the lovely action.
It is my understanding that there were Jewish collaborators in Ukraine in WWII and afterwards. I cannot imagine what would create that scenario. Nor can I fathom spending huge amounts of national treasure to the same country as it still suffers from almost schizoid contradictions. No wonder corruption thrives.
Sadly for some, one does what they need to do to survive. Others did it for money, power, and status among the Gestapo. Personally, I think if a jewish person did collaborate, it was probably out of the possibility that they and their families would be spared deportation.
Sadly though, after watching the movie Conspiracy, about the Wannsee Conference...There was no possibility of any Jewish person surviving.
I think that is true CM. People do what they have to do. Also the Soviets were viewed as oppressors, rightfully so, and many Ukrainians viewed Nazis as liberators initially but apparently Ukraine is where Hitler perfected his plan for Jewish annihilation.
See Aktion Reinhardt; and even before that there were rehearsals of rehearsals going back to getting rid of the disabled; subnormal; and mentally ill. All modelled on US eugenics law. It isn't difficult to see why so much pre-WWII history has been retconned and/or memory-holed.
Lynne are you referring to kapos?Which the Germans used throughout their conquered lands. Or something else? Also curious what a Jewish collaborator after WWII would refer to
which is chilling beyond words. I have no doubt that there were Jewish people who collaborated with the Nazis out of a sense of survival. For that I offer no condemnation.
A summary of my past and recent reading, is that the Ukraine, a region, not a nation, has throughout history been dominated by various groups. The modern Ukraine was a founding member of the USSR. Stalin's activities there were truly atrocious. He starved a vast number of people with his economic policies, arguably intentionally. He promptly replaced those souls with pro-Soviet, Russian immigrants in the area known as eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Ukrainian nationalism arose and resisted Soviet domination; Stepan Bandera is the face of that resistance and he has a checkered past, including Nazi collaboration. As Hitler came to power the Soviets engaged him and the Ukraine was a trophy for both. The Nazis occupied Ukraine for three years and were initially viewed by Ukrainians, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, as liberators. Thus Jewish collaboration. Then came the events of the linked article which suggest that the Nazi attempted extermination of Jews from Europe began in Ukraine. I can only assume after thst any Jewish collaboration was coerced. But as the Soviets repelled the Nazis you have to wonder if the Soviets were seen as benefactors. I cannot locate it at the moment but I have read that Ukraine was a refuge for escaping Nazis after WWII. The recent Canadian hoopla would lend support to that in my estimation.After the fall of the USSR Ukraine became the modern country it is now. She was heavily armed with nuclear weapons and neither NATO nor Russia wanted that. Talks were had between Ukraine, the US, the UK, and Russia with the upshot being an agreement that Ukraine would surrender her nuclear weapons and would remain neutral. In return her territorial sovereignty was recognized. Had she maintained that neutrality it seems to me she would have been in a position of extraordinary power. Instead she is known almost universally as a nation of extraordinary corruption and corruptibility. That being said, given her history just in the 20th century it is not surprising. Ukraine could not employ the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Either way. If the enemy is the USSR you make friends with Nazis? If the enemy is Germany, you make friends with Russians? It was lose-lose. That has to blunt the national psyche.
You had a good summary going there until you got to the Russian propaganda part, and then it went off the rails. Ukraine's territorial integrity was never in question in 1994 as part of the nuclear talks. That is just fanciful imagination right there. Her territorial integrity was recognized immediately after the USSR dissolution together with Russia's, and not questioned by anyone until 2022.
Ukraine never agreed to remain neutral. She just agreed to give up nuclear weapons based on security guarantees provided by Russia, the US, and the UK, who each agreed to respect her sovereignty. An agreement that was promptly forsaken by Russia in 2004 when it attempted to sway the Ukrainian presidential elections in favor of its preferred corrupt-as-hell, twice-convicted criminal candidate Yanukovich, which prompted the 2004 Orange revolution. Since then, Russia had a fixation on getting their guy installed, which they managed to do finally in 2010. He proceeded to rob the country blind for the next 4 years with his cronies, when the next election came around, in 2014, Russia again spent a few billion dollars in cash to buy off the votes. It is at that point that the majority of Ukrainians, who voted against him, recognized that they would most likely not survive another 4 years of Yanukovich robbing the country naked, rebelled, and he escaped to Russia, leaving his houses with pure-gold toilet bowls behind.
Trudeau blocked bank accounts from protesters and had the police run over with a horse over them. This is an excellent lesson in History on how tyrants emerge and come to power, even in democracies or so called "first world countries". As an immigrant from a third world I am appalled on how the left quickly went to 1984 mode so fast. I guess it can happen anywhere.
It’s shocking to witness what’s happening in Canada under Trudeau. From the freezing of bank accounts, to the censorship of media Bill C18, calling the entire country racist, the mass grave hoax, the WE scandal, SNC scandal, collapse of our economy, election interference from China, the list goes on and on. During his leadership, our first Indigenous attorney general, health minister, finance minister, Governor General, Clerk of the Privy Council (most senior civil servant), ambassador to China, defense minister, Trudeau’s own principal secretary and the Speaker of the House have all been fired or forced to resign in disgrace and scandal. And a few weeks ago, Trudeau’s wife left him. That says a lot.
Could you imagine a conservative being allowed to skate on wearing blackface, molesting a female reporter, manhandling female mps that oppose him and a host of other sins?
He is almost literally the worst canadian example possible.
Facebook shows "memories" of stuff you posted years ago, and a little while back it reminded me of a comment I had made back in the Obama years, back when I still bothered posting about political subjects on fb.
I had stated that Obama could *literally* screw a poodle on the White House lawn in broad daylight and the Democrats would not have a problem with it. That seems equally applicable now to Trudeau and Canada's Leftists.
I almost never comment on goings on in other countries. I don’t understand them, I don’t know their culture, and I hate it when other countries opine on ours like they know something. Trudeau, though, I hope is deposed. I almost feel sorry for our neighbors to the north before I remember that they willingly elected his dumbass twice. His entire agenda is to say the opposite of the US while stripping any freedom that he can find. He’s a totalitarian, an intellectual lightweight, and a bad person, and I don’t say any of that lightly.
But let's remember that he has never received anywhere near 50% of the popular vote and currently has a minority government that could be brought down quickly by a vote of non confidence. However the Liberals are backed up by the ideologically similar NDP party and the two parties together have more than enough seats to govern.
He is his father's son and the apple hasn't fallen very far at all. About the only saving grace is he is, by the looks of it, stupider. As it is Canada is about five minutes from an Enabling Act unless the opposition gets a shift-on.
This is the first time I've read something in the US press about India that goes any deeper than "Modi bad" or "Modi like Trump".
The man is the most popular leader on the planet and the leader of the world's largest democracy. Americans deserve more balanced reporting about India.
The author is Canadian, has previously spent a decade in India and is considered an expert on India and the Asia Pacific region. You're getting a different take on India because you're reading from someone that actually understands the county and is not beholden to US media giants.
She also writes for independent Canadian news site True North so she is not beholden to Canadian legacy media, or their paymasters, either.
Reporting about India in the US is totally dominated by the likes of NYT, Washington Post and their like. They absolutely hate Modi's guts and so now, it is starting to get a to a point where any story about India has to include tirades about "Modi bad", "Hindu nationalism"and other fear mongering about India and especially Hindus. They are so deranged, that this kind of slanted coverage extends to even their cooking section when they publish Indian recipes.
Take this latest incident with this Sikh extremist who was murdered. Without a shred of evidence they are trying to pin it on Modi. Oh btw, these Sikh extremists are responsible to thousands of deaths in India, including the blowing up of Air India 182 in the 80s which killed 329 people.This was the single largest terrorist incident involving an airplane until 9/11. This is an existential issue for India. But NY, Wapo etc. are so blinded in their hatred for Modi that they have completely omitted these facts in their coverage. In their eyes Modi is already guilty and must pay a price. To hell with one the most important strategic partnerships that the US has.
EDIT: I am going to link a substack article here which details how the Canadian govt (at that time led by Trudeau's dad) was complicit in allowing the Air India 182 bombing to happen.
https://espionage.substack.com/p/how-canadian-intelligence-allowed
Also, a detailed Hudson Institute paper that lays out how these Sikh radical (Khalistani) and Jihadi groups are supported by Pakistan, even in the West, to further destabilize India.
https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/pakistan-s-destabilization-playbook-khalistan-separatist-activism-within-the-us
Would that Americans would throw off their bondage to the NYT, the WaPoo, and their ilk, and get their news from "THE FREE PRESS."
All due respect to Bari and her team (who are doing good work), but I wish people could get their information from A free press, not THE Free Press. Democracy depends on it
Americans need to throw off their egregious parking of their tanks on other peoples lawns. You're fine as individuals; but collectively swivel-eyed loons who are a threat to everyone else.
The rest of the world can start pitching in on defense, both men and money. It does not always need to be US men and women fighting and US taxpayers footing the bill. Until then we will park our tanks wherever we want.
It's the sociopathic Neoliberal MIC warmongers, NOT the American people, but a large segment of the population is quite credulous to the outright false constant major media propaganda. To that degree, they are at fault.
To understand this, Sikhs have fought Muslims since the Mughal invasion in 1526. Sikhs were a pacifist group, until they were being slaughtered. A Guru said, "Fight" (Nanak, IIRC) and they did. That is the origin of always carrying a dagger to be ready. Sikhs have been the backbone of the Indian armed forces. They have done much of the dying as well. They can be trusted when fighting against Muslims on the frontier. Sikh's are 1.86% of India's population, but 8% of the Army. Sikh's are a key part of India's armed forces because they can be trusted to fight and fight effectively. Sikh's don't cut and run, and they don't secretly work for the enemy.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/comment/no-politics-please-the-army-is-secular-apolitical-195007
It's a little bit like the "deplorables" in America who are Christians doing most of the fighting and dying in America's wars, but much more complicated. The big difference is that in India, historical roots go back to the dawn of civilization on this planet. Sikhism is an offshoot of Hinduism (as is Buddhism, and Jains, etc.) Sikhs are relatively new for that part of the world, dating back 600 years. This is roughly the age of Lutherans in Christianity. (Buddhism is older, being 2500 years old.)
Some Sikhs want a separate nation. They see that Muslims got their lands by fighting. They see that primarily Hindu India won't give them their own homeland. India, for good reason, does not want to lose its Sikh population. If America had a movement to create a Christian homeland in, say, the Northwest, it could perhaps look a bit like this. Terrorism (asymmetric warfare) is a kind of warfare.
The terrorist acts were condemned by Sikh leaders, they declined, and mostly stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Punjab,_India
To call those acts of terrorism an "existential issue" for India is a bit much. Our 9/11 attacks were provocative, but they were not an existential threat.
However, what probably IS an existential threat to India is the prospect of losing the Sikh members of their armed forces. This would require renovation of the army, and it would mean that Muslims would become the most powerful part of the army in India. That would make the army itself an existential threat to India.
It is not "a bit much" to say that SIkh separatism is an existential issue for India. India was not born in 1947. The civilization has already been divided by the Brits/Muslims when they created Pakistan.
Importance of Sikhs to India goes well beyond the Sikhs who join the Armed Forces. Sikhs are as much a part of Indian history, culture and society as another group, Hindu, Buddhist or Jain etc. Hindus and Sikhs intermarry, worship in each others' temples, celebrate each others festivals. All the Sikh gurus were Hindus by birth. Radical Sikhs don't like to hear it, but Sikhism is like 99% similar to Hinduism. It is an offshoot after all, just like Jain and Buddhist religion.
The idea of "India" is a British legacy. If we hadn't shown up "India" would have remained a geographic expression.
You seem to know what you are talking about. Q: Islamic terrorism in India vs Sikh terrorism in India, what are the main differences and similarities?
The main similarity is that both are mostly non- existent. iny minorities with little support within their religious communities, Like Irish-Americans, who funded the IRA, the diaspora in Canada & California lean more to Khalistan than Sikhs living in India.
Also, a former Indian government promoted Khalistan-supporters, in a cynical attempt at triangulation. (A bit like the US supported Bun Ladin.)
Indian security agencies realized they had helped create a criminal terrorist gang,
But Pakistan's ISI has adopted this baby, with funding, training & logistic support.
Good point!
Answered at a level above this branch of the thread.
Great reply and I am more educated now as a result. I also want to hear Based Yuvi's view. I've been to India a few times and get the overall picture, it's the context and local subtleties that are really useful.
A lot can be said about Islamic terrorism in India. It is a centuries long saga. But the modern variant is mostly driven by Pakistani sponsored groups causing trouble. These attacks were mostly ignored by western media/governments in 90s and 00s because Pakistan was considered an ally during the Cold War and GWOT. No major Indian city which was did not get bombed or attacked during these years.
Sikh separatism is not something that became an issue until the late seventies -early eighties when the Congress Party (who are Modi's political opponents and (mis)ruled India for 70 years after its independence) decided to prop up some really unsavory characters for political gain in Punjab. These elements ultimately ended up challenging the writ of the state and committing crimes and extrajudicial killings. Pakistan, always on the lookout to create trouble in India, supported them to the hilt with money, logistics, training. Things came to a head in 1984, when the then PM Indira Gandhi ordered the Army, to attack the Golden Temple (Sikhism's holiest shrine) in Amritsar where the leadership had ensconced themselves. Hunderds were killed and the temple was FUBAR'd. What was a fringe radical movement became a full blown insurgency. The PM was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards. In reprisal attacks, Congress party workers killed thousands of Sikhs in riots across north India. Ultimately, the insurgency was put down after a decade but the cost was paid in thousands of innocent lives.
Today, Sikh separatist sentiments exists mostly in the diaspora communities which became the refuge of radical Sikhs from who escaped those turbulent times. They have taken over the Gurudwaras (temples) and preach non-stop hatred against the Indian state and even Hindus directly. Pakistani support to these elements continues to this day.
The western governments have at best looked the other way or even supported these elements, for various reasons. Successive Indian governments have asked their Western counterparts to rein in these troublemakers as they collect funds, threaten Indian diplomats and citizens, run mafia gangs back home in Punjab etc. but to no avail.
Thx! Insightful and useful. US legacy media reports none of this in a coherent manner.
Read History....this just proves to me that Americans know nothing.
We are a nation of ignoramuses. A perfect example of that are the idiots on the View and their audience.
We are well informed about the Kardashians...why bother with substance over style?
Spot on!
It’s an astounding display.
"Brown Man Bad"??
And the Christian beat downs (and worse)?
We deserve more balanced reporting about absolutely everything, including and especially Ukraine.
India is rising. The people I have met there are thriving in their own country. Food is plentiful and cheap. Sure, there are shanty towns, but the people who live in them are not lawless. Only weird things for me: sacred cows roaming the expressways and no apparent fear of what we in the west would consider dangerous. People are friendly and industrious. Treaudeau is a radical leftist authoritarian. How much more will Canadians need to see of that to get rid of him and bring back a leader who selflessly works for Canada again?
And who would that be? Polievre? Trudeau isn’t an authoritarian leader, the position of Prime Minister is a very strong one, in majority government. It all depend on the NDP and Jagmeet to stop supporting him. Not me in my French Québec and my fellow Québécois who didn’t vote for him either.
India is NOT a Democracy!
Americans know nothing about Asia, if they do it is because they have been on a Coach trip where they don't have to communicate with the people and stay in luxurious Hotels. I have seen this in Sri Lanka. It's an "I was here moment." Just the same as in Europe.
I have to say that I have come across young Americans travelling on their own and most are living the life of each Country).
Hindhu Nationalism is similar to Buddhist nationalism in Sri Lanka.
Both are serious threats to the people who have contributed to the growth of both nations. Sikhs/Muslims/Tamils etc.
The American public know NOTHING (this includes you Presidents/congress/senate).
There are many types of each religion. Theravada Buddhism rules Sri Lanka. They are mostly looked after by the Govt. and poor who provide them with food and money.
IF Americans want to be educated go there on your own and talk to the people.
Now Sri Lanka is destroying the History Books so that the Tamils are annihilated.
Hello America the dumb.
I see that you’re trying to convey a lot of information in your posts but I don’t feel smarter after reading them. Nothing you said convinced me that “Modi is bad.” If India is not a democracy then please enlighten how that is the case. Does it have elections like Iran or Russia? From what I understand that is not the case. Less hysteria please.
I am angry. I hate it when Americans 'pounce' on something in the mainstream press which they know nothing about.
DO you really think that Sikhs have a vote?
Do you think the Tamils have a vote in Sri Lanka?
The Hindhu Party before Modi was a cut-throat organization that killed thousands of people. Shopkeepers were co-erced .......into voting Hindhu.
It's a truly difficult subject because there are so many different religions in India and Sri Lanka.
I suggest if you are interested you look this up.
Jenny Stokes, I'm guessing you are angry a lot. Maybe take a look at that.
Yes, factions of Hindus were violent in India to dominate votes. Most of that was directed at Muslims. We don't have an equivalent, because Muslims in India still have their most important shrine, which is built around the broken pillar of the most important Hindu shrine when the Mughal army invaded. There is religiously mandated violence on the Muslim side, for centuries, and terrible history.
Sikhs vote. But Sikhs are 1.86% of India's population. Their votes don't accomplish very much. Sikhs are roughly 8% of the Indian army.
Imagine if the USA army was 8% pureblood native Americans, and they served on the front lines. In the USA, 1.3% (a similar fraction) are that. Would they have a vote? Yes, technically they would. Today, native Americans have a vote. But they don't see much for it.
Would the government of the US want to keep them as part of the army if this was the situation in the USA? Not allow them a homeland of their own? Probably so. Would that make the US government's president a bad person?
Trump is probably the ONLY US President bar Washington that I could say wasn't a mostly evil fuck who needed to be put down vis the rest of the world. You need to wind your necks in; you don't seem to grasp how disliked you are, and for good reason, in the rest of the world.
Thanks for not enlightening. I shall “look this up.” Is Modi also the president of Sri Lanka that you keep bringing it up?
Yes, agreed. Not enlightening. All heat, no light. You lost me at The American public knows NOTHING... blah, blah, blah
I absolutely did the trip to Asia you describe. I disagree on Europe - easier for a whitey like me fit in too real life there.
To be entirely fair and balanced: Modi bad and Modi like Trump does sum up a lot of important information on this autocratic, fundamentalist jackass. Whether we need to be careful, require his cooperation, and whether everything he does is not wrong, are separate issues.
Modi IS bad!
Modi is not bad. Modi is operating as a Hindu leading his nation trying to keep it together and build things.
India is NOT a Democracy which is why (many things) I loathe Biden.
Biden has screwed up a lot of things, but I don’t think Indian democracy is one of them.
Did he claim to have inspired Gandhi at some point? It’s hard to keep track. I know he survived a kitchen fire. And lived in a synagogue, or was it a mosque?
If you know of a Youtube that would educate 'America the Dumb' on India please share.
Do you not read?
I know nothing on U-Tube.
Ok. Name an author on India who prioritizes objectivity over NYT/WP narrative.
Niall Ferguson wrote a book about the Indian colonial period that is absolutely contrary to the NYT party line. I enjoyed it but I don't remember the name. When I discussed NF's views with a colleague from India (who now lives in Canada), he agreed with those views, at least as I presented them.
I could name hundreds. I have had a huge collection of books on India they are at present, in a bookshop in Avignon, France.
I promise I will come back to you with names when I remember them all.....it is late here and I am 74yrs old.
I will try my hardest.
No rush. Thanks.
Vikram Seth.
Salman Rushdie...Midnights children.
Amitav Gosh.
RK Narayan. OLD books but interesting. Maybe not able to find them now.
Women coming up.
You'll have to parse that, please. I sense a lot to unpack there.
you have a serious problem , get help
Is Modi bad?
Why is he so popular?
Not familiar with India's internal political dynamics.
42
666
616
666 is supposed to be the mark of the beast.
Actually, (dare I say it) the New York Times podcast The Daily had an episode about it. It was before Trudeau made his public statement. The episode focused on who Nijjar was and the history behind the movement he supported, and acknowledged that the investigation was still going on.
Having been in Canada (from the states) for 5 years now, I was surprised Trudeau got re-elected when he did last, but I guess I shouldn't have been. Canadians are a remarkably compliant people and seem to be pretty on-board with 'wokeness' or whatever you want to call it, making the Trucker's protest all the more remarkable.
If you’ve been here for 5 years then you should already know that the Chinese govt (the enemy of India) has been working to keep him in power, interfering in our elections.
Therefore all of this makes perfect sense, Trudeau serving his client.
He’s just such a douchebag.
Such a douchebag. He’s one of the most loathsome, smug, unlikable people on this planet.
Are China and India really enemies? They had some border clashes in 2021, but from what I can tell recently, they've agreed to better cooperation. Xi and Modi had an "aside" at the 2023 BRICS summit.
Call them strong geopolitical rivals
They mess with each others internals, Tibet, etc
Decades of border clashes, communist vs democracy
Let’s say they aren’t friends but share a border and are trying.
I think Xi is very adroitly exploiting current American weaknesses.
You don't have to be adroit atm. American foreign policy has always been crass and knuckle headed. Right now the Biden Admin is going for gold in American Stupid.
Not always. I think pre American Civil War (see I know the US is not the only country to suffer through one) not so much. But then the states themselves were dominant. Afterwards you may have a point as the push toward federal dominance began and has continued unabated. Teddy Roosevelt's Imperial Cruise is a stark example. Yikes.
Oh God....get off the mainstream press.
Get off your very ill-informed high horse.
She's a piece of work, isn't she? A stereotypical arrogant Leftist know-it-all a-hole...there are so many of them.
Wow Jenny, I, too, love Indian literature and have probably read all the same books. However this does not mean I am so educated on India and all other Americans are too stupid to understand or be curious about her history and complexities. You should take a nap instead of coming on here to angrily bash everyone who you feel hasn’t read enough Rushdie novels. Everyone else wants to have an earnest discussion on an interesting topic and you’re just all over these threads feeling superior about the “hundreds” of books and authors you are so familiar with that you can hardly remember any of them. Lol
This was a comment for someone else who asked me for books.
Put it this way, if their mutual frontiers weren't so high-altitude and marginal, it would have gotten very, very, nasty decades and decades ago. After India got the bomb, it would have gone nuclear almost immediately.
If you saw how many people in Toronto are wearing masks, still and again, you would not be surprised by Trudy's double-digit approval numbers.
The "blame India" curveball is not only a distraction from his other problems, but also a bone that he threw to Jagmeet Singh, his Khalistani coalition partner who is the only reason why Trudeau is still in power. I'm surprised that Rupa hasn't mentioned him.
Trudeau has won the last two elections with 32.6% and 33.1% of the popular vote, the two lowest totals in the history of Canada going back to 1867. The Conservatives had higher vote totals in both elections.
But I've been reliably told that the electoral college is terrible because it can lead to minority rule, and that a parliamentary system is so much better!
You won’t hear that junk from anyone on the prairies in Canada. Our oil and gas are the economic engine that drives Canada, yet we are always marginalized in Ottawa because there is no mechanism that recognizes geographic areas, or low population jurisdictions.
Touche. Whatever issues one may have with the US political system, I never could understand why people thought a parliamentary system was so much better.
The US is the presidential exception. Parliamentary system isn’t the issue, this is the ballot mode that is. Parliamentary is more open to coalition and discussion and less polarized. Trudeau will fall, he’ll fall democratically.
"Parliamentary is more open to coalition and discussion and less polarized." I don't see that at all, what I see are splinter parties wagging the "coalition" dog. Witness Italy, which has had, Wikipedia tells me, 69 governments in the 76 years since World War II. Makes no sense to me.
And the level of polarization is only minimally a result of the political system in play, and much more related to the intensity of the ideological struggle at any given time. Don't forget, the current high level of polarization in US politics is a recent (last ten years or so) development.
Because, as a nation, the USA is Special Needs. /s
Worse than that, there are very few checks on the Prime Minister's power once he wins an election.
I suggest pitchforks and torches
Oldie but a goodie
Nope. We have been hijacked by lefties.
I'd say most of the time it is; we are in a partricularly deep trough of douche across the Kingdom and Dominions atm.
So, because of the parliamentary system, there are multiple conservative parties splitting their majority vote? I mean, why is he PM?
The last two elections produced minority govt’s, with the Libs and NDP. The Liberals are very good at winning seats in high population areas like Toronto and Vancouver, where there are more seats. They will squeak by and win seats by maybe 1,000 in Toronto and get wiped out by Consevatives in places like Alberta, where Conservatives win by 20,000 votes.
No, but the combination of a first past the post system and the assignment of ridings strictly by population (which gives the large cities the lion share of the seats) makes possible to lose the popular vote and still win the election. The sad part is that Trudeau promised to change that, but then he didn't
His solution was a ranked ballot as he understood that no Conservative voter would put the NDP second and no NDP voter would choose a Conservative second, leaving Liberals to hold power forever as everyone's second choice.
As Jordan Peterson pointed out, everything Trudo says is a lie. Everything.
Bravo, I've been describing my fellow Canadians as "compliant Canadians" for years now. "Go along to get along," that's our motto, alright. "I stopped actually thinking years ago... I trust the government to do my thinking for me!" Sigh. It's depressing, actually.
I want to argue with you but I can’t. We like things comfy. No revolutionary past to refer to. I’m even ok with that! The happy middle does not exist.
I was under the impression that he actually wasn't "re-elected"; he only got about 35 percent of the popular vote for prime minister, but his party was re-elected to lead the government and the party put him in. Similar to the U.K., the voting public in Canada doesn't elect the country's leader, the winning party does that.
To be fair, in the US we don't elect the President either. The states do it. I am fairly sure that is a state wanted to and their constitution allowed it, it could just not hold an election for president and give their electoral votes however their state constitution allows.
here is Nijjar think he wants needs a ¨spaceship¨https://vimeo.com/868161758
Why did you move to the fascist country of Canada?
“fascist”?!
C’mo-o-n.
I was being sarcastic.
It is very popular on TFP discussion board to refer to Trudeau and Canada as a "fascists regime."
Cause of.....masks and Covid vaccinations.
42
187
That makes sense, cause I murder you on here regularly.
666
87 figure it out genius
666
666
Conprof might be being "funny"; but they are inarguably "On the Spectrum" so to speak. But for constituonal restraints, the US would be samewise.
42
666
666
69
You've never done that in your life.
42
666
616
How can anyone who knows history, especially country leaders, not realize in WWII that Russia was one of the Allied powers which means they fought against the Nazis, so this man fighting the Russians was of course, fighting for Germany/Hitler, against his own country. It is inconceivable to me that Canada's leaders and Zelensky did not know this. It is a disgrace.
Oh, Zelensky knew. It is not at all a secret in Ukraine that their WWII heroes were Nazis. They hated (and still hate) Russia enough that it's not viewed as a problem. The Azov Battalion is not really so much neo-Nazis as a symptom of people who never *stopped* being Nazis.
In other words, Putin (whom I don't support!!!!!) wasn't just blowing hot air when he talked about Nazis in Ukraine. Of course he tried to overstate the seriousness of the problem. But he wasn't making up something out of whole cloth.
I think Zelenskyy was blindsided. He would have assumed that such guests are properly vetted, so he wouldn't have expected a blunder of such magnitude.
Most Canadian politicians really are that ignorant of history. But the deputy PM, Chrystia Freeland, absolutely knew who Hunka was because her own grandfather was a Ukrainian Nazi. She should have stopped it, and I can't speculate about why she thought that it wouldn't blow up the way it did.
There is an interesting podcast on the Hub (which looks at Canadian politics from a right of center position) regarding this issue. Mind, right of center in CN is not very right.
What is "the Hub"?
A Canadian think tank that has podcasts about Canadian politics
Zelensky knew for sure. Any Ukrainian who fought "the Russians" (USSR) in WW2 did so in a Nazi unit. In the case of Hunka - the Waffen SS 14th Grenadier Division. But they have statues to Stepan Bandera there, so...
You are factually incorrect. The USSR and Germany were allies for 1 year and 10 months during WWII. It was very possible to fight "the Russians" and not be a Nazi. For instance, as part of the Polish army, while USSR in concert with Germany were conquering it. Or as part of the Ukrainian partisan movement in 1939 and 1940 as the Russians were summarily executing Ukrainians and deporting them to Gulag.
I agree that it’s possible that a Ukrainian (USSR citizen) fought against the USSR in the circumstances you described, though the comparative numbers compared to Ukrainian collaborator units under German control are way fewer.
Just on a related topic, do you have any sense of the numbers (people-wise) of Russian units that fought under German control against the USSR?
Of course, those are well known. They even had their own generals. They generally met bad ends since they were turned over by the Western Allies to the USSR after their surrender in the West. Dutch, Belgian, French, Norwegian, Estonian, Latvian, etc…lots of German occupied nations filled out German volunteer units fighting the Soviets. Many because of fervent belief in anti-communism, which is understandable.
But the subject here is a former Ukrainian SS soldier being honored in the Canadian Parliament. Knowing that so many Ukrainians served with the Germans against the Soviets that should have been the first question asked.
"The Azov Battalion is not really so much neo-Nazis as a symptom of people who never *stopped* being Nazis."
So, they're more like paleo-nazis.
Is that Nazis who don’t eat carbs? Lol
Well Hitler was vegetarian. They had principles
Fuehrerprinzipals.
That made me chuckle.
You brainless twit, Russia was literally allied with Hitler via Molotov Ribbentrop pact, until Hitler stabbed Stalin in the back.
Your understanding of the history of that part of the world is shallower than a dry seabed!
This comment is unnecessarily intemperate and insulting. Disagreement with points of view is one thing. Calling someone “a brainless twit“ is another thing entirely.
Its funny how a lot of people make fun of liberals as snowflakes. Yet, when one of the main cohort uneducated here gets called out for spouting patently ridiculous falsehoods, everyone rushes to defend her feelings, rather than attempting to figure out the facts. Presenting false facts is not having a disagreement on a point of view. Presenting false facts is just that, a wrong understanding of a complex topic. Which deserves to be called out as such. When you indulge people talking out of the a** about topics they don't have a rudimentary understanding of, you end up with the gender-as-a-spectrum and safe spaces.
oh boo hoo. She calls my people "nazis" for fighting the communist scourge with what meager choices we had available at the time, and you're bleating on about "intemperate"? Who is the snowflake here?
That period in Eastern Europe is ugly as f**k. Lots of people initially joined up with the Germans against USSR - because by then, the Soviets have been cleansing out and deporting millions of us for nearly two decades. So, please, fold it into four corners and shove it where the sun don't shine!
Slava Ukraini! You've been backed into America's stupid and have my sympathy.
Don't clutch your pearls so hard, you'll snap them.
Yes, Stalin and Hitler formed an alliance. Which was broken. Are you trying to say that the Nazis and Russians did NOT fight each other in WWII?
Celia is a kind person. Tanya, not so much.
Celia also requires one to think before feel.
Celia is not very bright. Neither is Ken
Don't engage.
For the product of the American education that you are presenting to be, here is a Cliff notes version:
Sept. 1 1939, Hitler attacks Poland based an agreement with USSR made in Aug. 1939 to split it up.
Sept. 17 1939, as Poland is fighting Germany on its western side, the USSR strikes Poland in the back on the eastern side, quickly occupying that part of the country. Germany and USSR carve Poland up along the lines of their Aug. 1939 agreement. They have a joint Red Army/Wehrmacht parade in Brest. There are pictures, feel free to Google.
1939-1941 USSR commences a cleansing program sending hundreds of thousands of people in Poland that are the wrong class (i.e. have an education) and political persuasion (i.e. not Communist) including ethnic Ukrainians living in eastern Poland, to the Gulag. This gets slowed down/interrupted when the Germans invaded the USSR in June 1941, and reengages when the USSR reconquers the territory of Ukraine from the Germans and resume their class/ethnic/ideological cleansing well into the 1950s.
Needless to say ethnic Ukrainians resisted, fought against the USSR occupiers and their repression for years. So when Russia attacked in 2014 and 2022, it simply triggered historical memories within the Ukrainians. So, contrary to your simplistic understanding, it is in fact very possible to be a Ukrainian, to have fought the Russians, and to not be a Nazi.
If I may make a suggestion, quoting the Putin apologist that is Tucker Carlson and his ilk to educated people simply presents you as a simpleton buffoon. I'd suggest stop doing that unless that is in fact the impression you want to convey.
But in this specific case the “war hero” was a card carrying Nazi, due to his service in the SS
Certainly. I wasn't responding to this particular individual's situation, but to seeing several people here confidently proclaim that unless a Ukrainian was fighting for the Soviets, he was a Nazi. It just felt necessary to disabuse lay readers of this simplistic notion confidently proclaimed by ignorants.
I am sorry you had to witness this, Celia. This is very familiar and beyond unpleasant.
Actually no, Russia and Germany were not allies during WWII. The pact you made mention of wasn't a pact that made them allies (fighting on the same side). The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression treaty wherein Russian and Germany would not attack each other.
The pact also quietly partitioned Central and Eastern Europe: the Germans were supposed to do their own conquering of Central Europe, while the Russians expanded the Soviet Union. The Germans broke the treaty 1 year and 10 months later when they launched Operation Barbarossa.
ETA: Calling someone a brainless twit, and then getting the wrong historical facts doesn't make Celia look like the brainless twit.
They literally had a military parade together, after carving up Poland from east and west, working in concert to strike Polish forces from both sides while coordinating with each other. That is some mental gymnastics you have to go through to manage to NOT call them allies. But rather than your strenuous interpretation, lets just rely on primary sources, such as the Pravda headline reporting on the topic. Here, I even googled it for you https://www.litfund.ru/news/11692/
Pravda. You mean the newspaper owned and operated by the Soviet Communist Party? That Pravda? Pravda. All the news that Joseph Stalin saw fit to print.
You made the argument that they were not allies. I provided a factual rebuttal to show that your argument is incorrect. You are now saying what exactly? That Pravda did not speak for Stalin, who considered it a military alliance?
Come on, try harder, this used to be taught in 10th grade World History. The Second World War started on Sept. 1, 1939. Germany and USSR had an alliance that ended by the fact of Germany invading USSR at 3:15 AM on June 22, 1941. For that 1 year and 9+ months they were allies. Its not that complicated. Even for an American.
Look up why the USA didn't declare war on Finland.
Oh, FFS, this is so dumb I'm not even going to explain anything to you. Suffice it to say that this is exactly the version of the "truth" that the communist party drilled into us during history lessons in USSR. Now repeated by lunatic lemmings like you in the West.
God have mercy on our souls.
Basically you've naively swallowed propaganda whole.
Speaking of shallow seabeds... Stalin never believed that pact. He predicted it would be broken, and he was correct about that, although it was faster than he expected. It was done to buy time. Meanwhile the slave labor camps of Siberia were populated, and solved the Hobbesian problem of lazy slaves and motivating intellectual work by systematically killing those who didn't give it their best, each year. That industrial might of Siberia is how WW2 was won. Stalin had, however, killed the army officer corps who could prosecute a war well. The rest is the grim history of the Nazi's slow loss to Russia, millions dead, and then the Iron Curtain. Still today there is justifiable paranoia about invasion of Russia by Europe.
The Nazis were received as liberators at first. But it became apparent that they had worse designs on Ukraine than Stalin. Some did join in with Nazis successfully.
A ramble: Always wondered how one could be a US communist after Stalin (the great hope of US communist) joined with Hitler who fought against German communist to gain power.
Because Communists, the foot soldiers, are basically stupid; and because those that wern't just footsoldiers were being run by the Organs, or Organs themselves. FDR was waddling; quacking; and swimming like a duck the whole time.
Now, now Tanya, go to your safe place and take deep breaths.
i'm a conservative, you dingbat, I don't believe in triggers, safe spaces, and gender woo. I do, however, have a brain and desire to learn. Unlike many people on here, clearly
Thank you for your kind words.
"Suffice it to say that this is exactly the version of the "truth" that the communist party drilled into us during history lessons in USSR."
Your reply is exactly the same as dissing Jews for getting angry about the US whitewashing and and making citizens of the likes of Von Braun.
Don't be so ruddy tone deaf.
This isn't about history. It is about being civil. She can disagree with someone but she doesn't have to be nasty and come on, you know that.
The brainless one is not Celia M.
how do you know these commenters have no understanding of that history?
nothing they said was incorrect.
Everything Celia said was factually incorrect.
no actually it was accurate.
my personal opinion is zelensky and nuland are systematically destroying ukraine to get rid of azov types. and of course, to get rich
but that's an opinion unlike Celia's comment which was fact.
Oh, Zelensky knew. <She has no way of knowing that. Can't call it a fact.>
It is not at all a secret in Ukraine that their WWII heroes were Nazis.
<This is not true. The Ukrainian Nazi myth of part of Kremlin propaganda. It has the same veracity is calling the US a Nazi-loving country because there are some people that march with tiki torches in the US>
They hated (and still hate) Russia enough that it's not viewed as a problem.
<This is not true. More than 50% of the Ukrainian population had a very favorable view of Russia. Until it started shelling residential buildings with artillery, that is>.
The Azov Battalion is not really so much neo-Nazis as a symptom of people who never *stopped* being Nazis.
<Ukrainians as a people were never Nazis. There were some sympathizers. (Like Charles Lindbergh, and Joe Kennedy and you know, the whole American Nazi Party. But no one was ever dim-witted enough to use those facts to call Americans Nazis.) It is factually incorrect to project that on to the whole nation. Especially given that Ukrainians suffered more than Russians, proportionally, from the Nazi's. Making this claim is just beyond the pale factually and ethically.>
In other words, Putin (whom I don't support!!!!!) wasn't just blowing hot air when he talked about Nazis in Ukraine.
<He was, see above about the tiki torches thing>
Of course he tried to overstate the seriousness of the problem. But he wasn't making up something out of whole cloth.
<He was, that's what he does. He takes pride in lying, its a professional skill that he is very proud of. One has to be a certain kind of stupid to take anything he says at face value at this point, after 25 years of documented lying>.
See, everything she said was inaccurate. May I suggest changing your news sources away from Russian shills like Tucker Carlson or Douglas MacGregor (or that idiotic comedian that goes on Joe Rogan talking about Ukraine and Russia). Those are highly educated men (not the comedian on Joe Rogan) that are highly compensated for spreading bullshit. People that then repeat it for free just come across as grossly ignorant.
Back to Trudeau: His authoritarian tendencies are where so-called progressives are headed with their demonizing, censoring, and attacking those with whom they disagree. Trudeau would have us believe that he is never wrong and always blames others for his mistakes. Sound familiar? For a very good discussion of this latest debacle in Canada listen to Walter Kirn and Matt Taibbi’s podcast this week.
You come across as a female Comprof.
don't insult Huggy like that , uncalled for
Confraud’s misplaced arrogance invites disdain. After today I’m returning to not responding to him that bothers him more.
your brain is a dry seabed the deadea
Same with the Finns. They had a Finnish division with the NAZIs at Leningrad. The Finns, justifiably so, hated the Russians.
Literally EVERYBODY in that part of the world was justified in hating Russians. Every single nation
They were easy to hate.
Celia, I can't be sure based on your post...do you support Putin?
No, I don't.
Just don't forget that Hitler and Stalin signed a non-agression pact (that incuded provisions for dividing Poland) before Russia became an Ally. It was all really complicated in Ukraine before WWII -- they had virulent anti-Semites while also having thriving Jewish populations, much of which were decimated by German and Ukrainian Nazis. Nothing is clear-cut and straight-forward about the Ukraine.
Yeah, that statement holds true for the US. They (USA) had virulent anti-Semites (especially in the State Department) while also having thriving Jewish populations (NYC, Milwaukee, LA, etc.). Luckily, the American Nazi Party didn't get to decimate those.
That's not a good analogy. While there certainly was (and is) anti-semitism in the US, and especially in the State Dept., the Am. Nazi Party had no power and, to my knowledge, did not engage in seriois violence against Am. Jews. Progroms against Jews occurred regularly in Ukraine and Beloruss in the early 20th c., and that level of violence continued through and after WWII. Moreover, the violence against Jews in the US was never sanctioned by the government as it was in Ukraine. Not saving European Jews during WWIi is not an equivalent to the slaughter of Jews committed by Ukrainians at that time.
I don't think you got the point I was trying to make. Let me try to be more clear about it. There is a tendency to call Ukraine and large part of its population Nazi, based some seemingly on-point descriptive facts. However, those same facts are very applicable to the the US, it has virulent anti-Semites in government, it has its own <national> Nazi Party that marches in different places in the country, yet no one calls the US a Nazi country based on these facts, but does call modern day Ukraine Nazi based on those same "facts".
The statement you made above is not factually correct. If you replace Ukraine with Russia, it will become factually correct. State sanctioned anti-Semitic violence occurred in the Russian Empire, in its different constituent parts - Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova (Bessarabia), etc. Ukraine could not have sanctioned violence against the Jews as you claim as it was not a sovereign entity to do so. It was a part of the Russian Empire and then USSR. There was no slaughter of Jews committed by Ukraininas at "that" time. There was slaughter of Jews committed by Russia, USSR, Germans, USSR again, which was carried out by Russians, Germans, Belarussians, Poles, Ukrainians, Tatars, Latvians, Czechs, Hungarians, etc. The US specifically turned around ships full of Jewish refugees trying to escape and sent them back to German-occupied Europe to face certain death in the gas chambers (lets not sugar coat with "not saving European Jews" the very specific and clear policy choices to send Jews to certain death made by a very anti-Semitic US government, they didn't have to do much saving as you put it, just to let those poor people disembark). The French would turnover their Jews to the Gestapo to be sent to extermination camps, etc. It was a wholly European and US affair, everyone played their part. Except that, you know, Ukraine wasn't a sovereign country to make government decisions on anti-Semitic policy, as opposed to the US or Germany or USSR, which were and did make those decisions.
I do understand what you are saying, but I'm fairly certain that you are incorrect on at least 2 grounds. First, to say that the Ukraine did not exist in the 1930s is not accurate. The Ukrainian people lived in the geographic area known as Ukraine for centuries. The USSR formally defined the borders of the Ukraine in the 1920s when the USSR was setting the borders for all the Soviet states based on ethnographic, demographic, and cultural factors. See "Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge & the Making of the Soviet Union," by Francine Hirsch. By WWII, the Soviet state of Ukraine encompassed most of the world's Ukrainian population. Certainly Ukrainian state employees and actors participated in was crimes against the Jews; I believe there is no dispute that Ukrainian military and law enforcement helped round up Jews and send them to their deaths. As I previously stated, I understand that not all Ukrainians took part in the war crimes against the Jews, but enough did to cause the slaughter of a huge percentage of its large Jewish population.
Second, to compare the actions of the United States government to that of the Ukrainian government is repugnant and suggests to me that perhaps you've been reading some revisionist history that is simply not accurate. The US is not perfect and made mistakes, but it was largely responsible for reversing the tide of German victories, defeating the Axis powers, and liberating the few Jews who survived the Holocaust. (I understand the Soviet Union also played a significant role in defeating Germany, but not one as great as the US.) Whatever wrongs and mistakes the US made, they pale in comparison to the huge amount of good the US did during WWII to win the war and then rebuild Europe. The Ukrainian state supported the slaughter of a large part of its sizeable Jewish population and lacks a record of mitigating efforts that could potentially off-set its war crimes.
The US welcomed approx. 2 million Jewish immigrants in the first quarter of the 20th century, a huge number given the population at the time. Few other countries were as welcoming to the Jews as the US, and the only ones that came close to the US, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, could not protect its Jews from Hitler. Among the millions of Jews who were welcomed by the US were my grandparents and I would be fool if I were not eternally grateful to the US for that.
Again, your first premise is borne of incorrect understanding. Ukraine was not a state. The state was the USSR. Ukraine was an administrative part of that state. The USSR was not a federal system like the US (it was also not like the EU, which you appear to perceive it to be). The policy was set at the USSR level, not at the Ukraine level. For any official to attempt to set policy at Ukraine level was a sure-fire way to end up in the Gulag, as that would be perceived as a direct attempt to undermine and subvert the monopoly of the Communist Party of the USSR to set policy on anything and everything in the USSR. The fact that this needs to be explained tells me that your understanding of the subject matter is extremely limited.
Second, I did not compare the actions of the US government to those of Ukraine (again, you can't compare it to Ukraine, as the US government as a sovereign state could set its own policy, but Ukraine could not). I simply wondered out loud if your prickly insistence on calling out, and overblowing, every perceived sleight from Ukraine towards Jews extended to the examination of US actions in bringing about the destruction of large numbers of Jews during WWII. To me, that role is more egregious, because again, the US could set its own policy and chose not to, but Ukraine did not even have the option of setting its own policy. I hope you see the difference here. Its like the laws on the duty-to-act. They apply to a 25 year old who is considered an adult, but they don't apply to a 14 year old, who is considered a minor.
Thirdly, " (I understand the Soviet Union also played a significant role in defeating Germany, but not one as great as the US.)". This quote is just beyond ridiculous, and tells me you have a less than rudimentary understand of the topic. This is the equivalent of saying the Civil War in the US was won in the West. No. The West was an important area of operations with repercussions for the wider war, etc. and provided an opportunity for Grant to come into his own. But that war was also going to be won or lost in the East, where the overwhelming majority of belligerent forces were situated. And here someone like you comes along and says, the Civil War was won in the West, the Eastern theater (I don't know, like Sherman's March to the Sea) played a significant role in defeating the Confederacy, but not as great as the West. To any serious student of the Civil War that would just identify the author of such a statement as a complete naive on the topic. (On a serious note, compare and contrast Operation Bagration with Operation Overlord in terms of number of troops involved on both sides, number of munitions, etc. to get an idea of what the war in the Eastern theater was like. And then take heed that Bagration took 3 months to put together, not the 2.5 years that Overlord did.)
So no, the Ukrainian state did not support the slaughter of Jewish population as there was no Ukrainian state. That basic foundational fact you got wrong. Plenty of ethnic Ukrainians participated in all sorts of war crimes against the Jews, just like plenty of Russians, Belorussians, Poles, and every other nationality in Eastern Europe. And plenty Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainins, Poles, and every other nationality in Eastern Europe helped them. But as a matter of state policy, no, Ukraine didn't have one, as again, it was not a state.
I am happy that your ancestors landed safely in the US. My Jewish grandparents only got there in the 1990s, having gone through the German ghettos, guerilla warfare to liberate their homeland, and a lifetime of discrimination in the USSR. So my understanding of the topic is informed by a lifetime of study of that time and place as a History major, plus a lifetime of conversations with my grandparents, parents, etc. who have lived through it.
I suspect they know it. It's just an inconvenient truth.
I think it is hedging your bet.
Agreed. When I heard the speakers introduction of this man I was shocked. All of these people are claiming they did not know his background and he was not properly vetted. The speaker introduced him as someone who fought for the Nazi’s, at least to anyone who is not as ignorant of history as a 2 year old. There is no way that the speech was written and reviewed without someone realizing this and anyone with a half a brain listening in that chamber should have put 2 and 2 together.
None of that is to suggest there was a good choice in Ukraine at the time. You were either on the side of Hitler or the side of Stalin so...
The Soviet Union was, unfortunately and stupidly, allied with by the W.Allies. The SU invaded Poland, Galicia (where Hunka comes from) was part of Poland annexed to the Ukranian SSR. Which was been being genocided by Stalin previous to his alliance with Hitler and invasion, with Hitler, of Poland. WTF would you do in that situation?
Not stupidly. It was cynical realpolitik. The allies should have turned on Russia near the end. Churchill would have been happier with that. But, the US couldn't demonize uncle Joe. And the huge number of communist sympathizers in US media etc. made it politically unviable to turn coat.
Trudeau probably did not know that Hunka was a Nazi; after all, he's incompetent. Trudeau DID call his fellow citizens Nazis during the trucker's protest. That is far more damaging to Canada and the Western world than mere stupidity.
Freeland had to know.
Of course she did. Her grandfather was a nazi collaborator
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/chrystia-freeland-needs-to-come-clean-about-her-nazi-collaborationist-grandfather
Chrystia’s playing the long game...
i think so too , but she is drastically underestimating how much carrying Trudeaus water after all the things that have happened is going to stick to her. She will likely be considered unelectable as PM by many in the party due to her deep loyalty to JT. She had a shot a while back and probably could have made moves behind the scenes to oust him, but chose to stay loyal publicly. I don't see how she could be viable as a party leader in a general election after so much has happened. The Libs will need a complete overhaul after the JT era.
Is Trudeau just stupid, willfully ignorant, actually evil? I can't tell. I'm leaning to the willful-ignorant/evil end of the spectrum.
I agree with BJ Dichter (trucker convoy leader; see Triggernometry interview on Youtube): Trudeau is typical of a raft of Canadian politicians (in all parties) who are just not good enough. The best and brightest give politics a wide berth. We’re not the only country to suffer from impoverished leadership options and we pay the price every day. Painful!
Before we get too carried away about Trudeau's shortcomings, we should look in our own backyard. The male model, er, Governor of California Gavin Newsome is getting a lot of press about being the Democratic candidate for President should our current Leader of the Free World get lost leaving a stage and not be found. Newsome is basically Trudeau without the accent. Watching him preen about what a great job he has done as Chief Executive of the 6th largest economy in the world indicates one of two things is true: He is either the world's most clueless twit or the glibbest liar. His response to the reason gas is over $7/gallon in California is a classic: "Yeah, it's terrible. Those oil companies are really screwing us." Don't snicker too much about Trudeau. That level of leadership (?) may be coming soon to a White House near you.
I paid $3.25 this morning for gas
I am grateful to those mean, greedy oil companies for screwing Californians more than me
I’m a Canadian, so... I mean, I hear you on Newsome, but not my governor😉
The best and the brightest don't go into politics. The people who run for office have to crawl out from under a rock to run.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one of the last.
Do we need a conscription system?
Someone once said we would be better off if we chose names at random out of the NY phone book.
William F. Buckley
Boston
That's Baston.
NY? You'd mostly be sticking your pin in the same kind of wanker as far as I can tell.
You're missing the point. Buckley was saying if our politicians were picked randomly from the general population we would be better off.
It's a shame. I'm a foreigner but it seems to me that Trudeau's father was a far more capable statesman.
Trudeau senior was also more evil. Justin's damage is due to his staff manipulating him; Pierre's damage was all his own.
Trudeau is just another socialist tyrant.
It is right next door. Is there something in the water? Trudeau père was a far nastier piece of work because of that.
The Canadian government which has a widespread euthanasia program gave a standing ovation to a Nazi.
This sentence speaks volumes Rob.
I like the way they trapped their citizens in the country. You couldn’t leave without a Covid vaccine.
Gavin Newsom is acting just like Trudeau. Same sort of guy. Manipulative politician unhinged from the people and without a moral center that is visible. All you need to know about Trudeau is in how he flushed Rota, blaming him for what he had done.
Lots of low-information voters would vote for Newsom just like Trudeau because he's "good looking". I just get creepy sociopath vibes out of both of them.
Yes... Nelli Bowles just wrote about "liking him" and I warned: that's how we ended up with JT. "The hair, the socks, the 'sunny ways'"... come on people, we're better than this! Why do abject failures (San Fransisco, mass outflow from California) always manage to fail up?
I just posted a comment about this on TGIF. Although I want to believe she was being sarcastic, the voters fall for superficiality every time. We might as well be back in Junior High.
And like Newsom, another pretty face. God forbid the voters elect someone "stodgy," but competent.
They both kiss their reflections in the mirror every morning.
Yep. Someone else is always to blame.
Rota seems to have thrown himself under the bus.
You have to dig a little deeper into Trudeau to truly understand this, which is ironic as it is the complete superficiality of the man that is at fault. He probably wasn't aware that some Ukranians fought for the Germans, and much less that some or most of them did so to liberate themselves from Stalin and his famine, making their moral position a heck of a lot more complicated than even which socks he should choose (and if you know your Justin, you'll understand that).
That superficiality is his trademark. Why women in the cabinet? Because it's 2016. Peoplekind. Etc etc. All while breaking conflict of interest rules, trying to influence justice by involving his own attorney general in a politically-motivated non-prosecution, and then sacking her despite her being female, indigenous and, worst of all, competent. We've watched this clown apologise for everything, but do nothing to change it. Make an entire psychodrama with flags at half mast for months over a Canadian genocide that did not happen, and then threaten to pass a law criminalizing expressions of disbelief in that supposed genocide. He has screwed up our economy for decades to come by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to throw at anything that might buy a vote because he thought that "modern monetary theory" was a real thing and not an old mistake exemplified by the Weimar Republic. But if you live in a reliably Liberal area you won't see that cash, as you already vote his way. That's why Nova Scotia is about to become an island as the crappy low dyke keeping the highest tides in the world out of the Chignecto Isthmus is about to fail but he won't spend a penny on it. And if you don't see that you have to be vaccinated to sit by yourself in a truck cab for 12 hours a day you'll get your bank account frozen and criminal charges. He has not just been a bad prime minister, he has been a disaster. And as his sins mount up, Canadians are becoming ever more hungry—who can blame them?—for an opponent willing to say anything more extreme in the opposite direction. Frankly, the Conservatives would win the next election with a moderate socialist platform, so unpopular is Trudeau, but instead we are getting into slightly deranged territory with PP, who will be our next PM.
I have long believed that when one party goes extreme (leftwards or rightwards), the correct policy for the opposition party is to simply be less extreme, rather than move far in the opposite direction as they usually do. That way they keep all their own voters, and vacuum up the doubtful from the other side. But as soon as Justin goes more woke, PP gets more rigidly rightist and so on. What a mess!
There is nothing "far-right" about Poilievre. His policies are moderate - he's not touching abortion or public healthcare, he wants to build housing rather than curb immigration (I wish he would curb immigration), and he wants a smaller, less authoritarian government. If that's far right, sign me up! In fact, I'm already signed up.
This made me chuckle. PP as a populist, far right leader? Not even close. He’s just another career politician who senses the frustration of the vast majority of Canadians. If anyone thinks, good or bad, that he will usher in a new era of politics in Canada, they are sadly mistaken. He might be sharper than previous Conservative leaders, but he’s no radical.
I'm assuming you mean that as a good thing.
We don’t hear much about that faux genocide these days. At least an apology would nice.
Remind me what that was; it is difficult enough keeping track of English Stupid.
The claim was that hundreds of native children had died of neglect at a Catholic school in Canada. Our woke useless Pope even issued an apology. The first body has yet to be found.
True of Republicans here too.
I agree with you, but a moderate socialist platform didn't work in 2021, so perhaps extreme is the way to go, unfortunately.
Funny thing is I was in Ottawa Friday for a football game and got held up by Zelenskyy’s motorcade.
I wish all the worst for our prime idiot, the worst of all Canadians, the literal poster child/textbook definition of white privileged.
Maybe he can go for a skate on the Rideau canal.
Yes, I know it’s not frozen
I'm going to the Bombers/Argos game tonight and there won't be a motorcade or a Trudeau in sight!
Go Riders.
Thoughts and prayers for the 2SLGTBQIA+ community who had to endure this whole ordeal. Godspeed.
They keeping adding letters and numbers......
They can add as many letters and numbers that they want, they'll still only amount to about 3% of the population.
They should add the Prince symbol at the end, it would look cool
The problem is that the more letters and numbers they add, the greater the percentage of the population that falls into the whole category of "marginalized" people. What the heck is "A" after all? Aromantic? Asexual? Probably at least 25% of women over 50 might be inclined to "identify" as that. And what is "+"?? No-one really knows what the alphabet soup is any more. Just stick to LGB, we know who they are and they legitimately fought hard for their rights. The rest of it is just hangers-on.
At this point I think it is all "enablers" and dolts. The ones with a braincell are quietly edging toward the door.
12345ABCDEFLGBTQ#%^!€£\
First time I saw that I thought it was someone’s password that had posted by mistake
Right!?! He is so damned predictable.
I love Canada and, as an American, I do not presume to tell our cousins to the north how to run things. But, having spent a fair amount of time in Canada recently, I do wish for a PM and provincial governments less interested in public pronouncements and more interested in good airports that can handle baggage and connecting flights, good roads that get fixed in timely ways, and--how I can I say it?--a more can-do spirit in how people approach their work in both the public and private sectors. Canadian government showed greater zeal for ticketing elicit grocery shoppers during lockdown--and make no mistake: Canada would still be in lockdown if some politicians had their druthers--than in ensuring the the productive resumption of business, life, schooling, community, and commerce. Canada is a kinder but also more passive North American nation. To stay kind it needs to be more effective.
Mitch Horowitz well said.
A dirty little secret about Canada is that one of our past times is making fun of you Americans . Not a single day goes by that you will not read a story in our MSM that could be titled: “ look at what those stupid Americans are up to now”.
We’re polite, but not behind your back.
Our national broadcaster, the CBC is particularly bigoted against you.
National/Public broadcasters are duty bound to bigotry.
Thank you! If this is the "real" Mitch Horowitz, I really enjoyed your recent appearance on the Duncan Trussell Family Hour. Looking forward to reading your new book. :)
That's me--and thanks!
Interestingly, Canada (very similar society to the US immediately next-door, just 1/10 of the population) had 1/4 of the Covid epidemic of the US. 1/4 the number of Covid cases, and 1/4 the number of Covid deaths (per capita). Now you’re welcome to say that all our “freedom“ in the US is worth more than staying alive and not dying from Covid. But it seems from an epidemiological perspective, they were doing *something* right in respect of all the people who didn’t die or get seriously ill.
Canadian here. I don't have all of the exact figures, because they varied greatly by region. We may have had a smaller lethal effect from COVID, but our medical system, which is very different from the US (not so much in practice but in how treatment is prioritized, allocated and accessed because we have universal health care) was heavily burdened and unfortunately we had an entire wave of delayed and deferred treatments that negatively impacted patients waiting for cancer treatments, surgeries, primary care, etc. Only the most critical (emergent) cases were treated, in most cases. This was because the system was PRIORITIZING Covid cases over all others - so sadly, "pushing" other patients away.
Certain communities of medical professionals tried to raise the alarm on how back-logged the system had become - one example, they raised the issue of the increased incidences of advanced cancers as a first-time diagnosis because people were having such a hard time accessing primary (family doctor) appointments throughout much of the crisis.
So, yes, we are a country with many similarities to the US - but also differences in how we approach medical systems in general, obviously. But in the end, Canada fared no better and no worse than many peer European countries, many who have somewhat similar systems. But while our numbers may appear better on the surface, compared to the US - they also came at a cost - the effects of which are still being felt (we are still working with surgical backlogs and deferred treaments in 2023). It would be interesting to share that data, too - which we are still collecting.
I can't comment comprehensively on the outcomes in the US - but the Canadian approach had its own set of flaws, its own cost.
How many cancer patients died because their treatment sessions were cancelled during COVID? It was handled terribly.
I don't know the number - but I do know a lot of people whose access to healthcare was negatively impacted because the priority was COVID - I brought this up because although I do support universal health care, and I can't say what country did things exactly right with respect to Covid (except maybe Sweden that maybe did the best, overall because of their approach), it caused a lot of "downstream" impacts, particularly with a system like ours, and those effects still linger. I am not anti-vaxx and had elderly and immune compromised people close to me - but since the comment I was responding to was around how Canada fared better than the US, I think it's important to be transparent. I seriously wonder if this data will ever come out - although at least people recognize the system is backlogged and there were these negative impacts. But I wonder just how bad things got -not just the US, but Canada is living in a time where little criticism is tolerated and you are immediately criticized as a "Trump loving conspiracy-theorist" if you raise these important issues (LOL - I am not a Trump supporter).
Sweden has other stupids to make up. They've just reached the point of having to call the army out and put it on the street because of bombings and murders. Yes they did better over Covid but other than that they are one of the most deeply derp countries in the EU.
But now you have MAiD which will help clear out the backlog
All the check-boxxes are ticked bar an Enabling Act.
Yikes.
Tiny cities compared to ours, vastly more rural population maybe?
We are much less densely populated. That would account for a large amount of the variation.
Those are good points. I warrant that vax rates--higher in Canada (to its credit)--were more decisive than prolonged lockdown. Canada was slower to adopt the vax but its public may have been more open, which I applaud. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60380317
Applause not called for. It is a fact that the vaccine was not even tested to see if it prevented transmission before the rollout. It was under emergency use authorization and was liability free, despite Pfizer’s previous record fine for health care fraud. A recent study from the Cleveland Clinic found that the most vaccinated are the most likely to test positive for Covid. Several other countries have reported the same (negative efficacy). Worst of all, myocarditis and other serious complications including death from the Covid vaccine are being systematically concealed from the public.
Another pig-ignorant American.
I am not sure about this but I think I am right?
I don't think Canadians all own guns?
At least Jenny is not on her "my body, my choice" tear today..yet.
she is a poster child for abortion on demand to bad she was born pre abortion on demand
Was kinder. As of now it looks like five minutes from an Enabling Act.
Amen.
Rupa, another excellent article. Speaking as a Canadian, I’m confused how our leaders forgot that Canada and the Soviet Union were allies in WWII, and if you were a male Ukrainian or ethic German living in the Soviet Union at that time, your choice was conscription to the Soviet army or volunteer for the German army to fight the oppressor. But, according to Rota, Trudeau and Zelenskyy, Hunka was a freedom fighter against Russia?? The stupidity and carelessness in Ottawa is unbelievable. Canada accepted many, many European immigrants after WWII who had to make tough choices during the war. I’m not willing to judge people placed in situations I cannot bear to imagine.
My issue with your post is about tough choices. A legitimate tough choice is:
1. Do I send my son to work in Germany because we are starving?
2. Should we flee east to Siberia?
But plenty of Ukrainians were happy to help the Germans murder Jews, for a sack of potatoes or sugar, or for free. Previously, the word pogrom became widespread after violence towards Jews in the Ukraine. So yes, you can judge some actions of people with less nuance.
Yes, I take your point. I guess what came to mind is the terror and tragedy Ukrainians lived through during the Holodomor genocide in the 1930s, even resorting to cannibalism to stay alive, or selling body parts of their recently deceased family members. (Look it up on wikipedia if you are unfamiliar with that tragedy.) Then, ten years later, these people see a chance for freedom, although misguided. With the little I've learned from first-hand accounts of survivors of Stalinist tyranny, I'm not sure that all of us would turn out to be heroes when placed in their shoes. This is not a defence of violence, only a recognition that we all have the capability for violence.
My family is from there, I don’t need to look it up.
I think the Ukraine has historically been the most anti-Semitic place on earth. Maybe because they were never expelled like in Spain or England. I just think that culturally or religiously Ukrainians had even more engrained animus toward Jews. The stories of cannibalism are horrid from that time period. But persecuting Jews was just somewhat standard.
Other than this I very much agree with your overall Canada assessment
If you claim to be from there, you should probably be aware that the word pogrom originated from czarist Russia in the 1880s. Here is what 5 seconds on Google can get you regarding the etymology of the term https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC . It works wonders in preventing you from coming across as having no clue what you are talking about. Note how the word Ukraine is not mentioned in the article. (Although in true Russian fashion, they do talk about the race riots in the US as pogroms).
I did not say that the word originated from Ukraine but that it became widespread after violent incidents in the Ukraine. Your link literally reads as this:
“The word entered many European languages after the famous anti-Jewish Kishinev pogrom.…the word “pogrom,” in modern history, Jewish pogroms in the South and West of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries became especially widespread”
The South and West of Russia referred to the Pale of Settlement. Which intersects with present day Ukraine and parts of Poland. Kishinev is in Moldova.
You are truly a wonder of a dumbass. But of course you linked to the Russian Wikipedia.
I guess you place Kishinev in Ukraine? Did you matriculate in the US?:) The South and West of Russia wouldn't refer to Ukraine. Poland and Belarus was the West of Russia at the time being referred to. And the South of Russia usually refers to the Caucasus, and the Russian Black Sea coast. Referring to Ukraine as the South of Russia would be like referring to Arizona as the South in the US... across the oceans, it may seem to be the same, but to someone that is up to speed you just come across as having no clue. So no, none of that is related to Ukraine. Keep on being ignorant.
What's wrong with Russian Wikipedia? You have some alternative sources or facts that contradict this article?
But do we know this guy’s story specifically? I heard he was part of an SS unit, but do we have knowledge that he did anything other than kill Russians?
We probably do not and will not know. But I found this website informative
http://espritdecorps.ca/history-feature/whitewashing-the-ss-the-attempt-to-re-write-the-history-of-hitlers-collaborators
It's refreshing to read nuanced comments such as this. Thank you.
Making legitimate “tough choices” does not include joining the Waffen SS, whose prime mission was the brutal extermination of Jews. It was well known then. To volunteer for the Waffen SS was not just to sympathize with Jewish genocide, it was wanting to be part of all the lovely action.
It is my understanding that there were Jewish collaborators in Ukraine in WWII and afterwards. I cannot imagine what would create that scenario. Nor can I fathom spending huge amounts of national treasure to the same country as it still suffers from almost schizoid contradictions. No wonder corruption thrives.
Sadly for some, one does what they need to do to survive. Others did it for money, power, and status among the Gestapo. Personally, I think if a jewish person did collaborate, it was probably out of the possibility that they and their families would be spared deportation.
Sadly though, after watching the movie Conspiracy, about the Wannsee Conference...There was no possibility of any Jewish person surviving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany
I think that is true CM. People do what they have to do. Also the Soviets were viewed as oppressors, rightfully so, and many Ukrainians viewed Nazis as liberators initially but apparently Ukraine is where Hitler perfected his plan for Jewish annihilation.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/ukraine-holocaust
See Aktion Reinhardt; and even before that there were rehearsals of rehearsals going back to getting rid of the disabled; subnormal; and mentally ill. All modelled on US eugenics law. It isn't difficult to see why so much pre-WWII history has been retconned and/or memory-holed.
Lynne are you referring to kapos?Which the Germans used throughout their conquered lands. Or something else? Also curious what a Jewish collaborator after WWII would refer to
No. I did not even know what kapos were and in looking it up I ran across this:
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/ukraine-holocaust
which is chilling beyond words. I have no doubt that there were Jewish people who collaborated with the Nazis out of a sense of survival. For that I offer no condemnation.
A summary of my past and recent reading, is that the Ukraine, a region, not a nation, has throughout history been dominated by various groups. The modern Ukraine was a founding member of the USSR. Stalin's activities there were truly atrocious. He starved a vast number of people with his economic policies, arguably intentionally. He promptly replaced those souls with pro-Soviet, Russian immigrants in the area known as eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Ukrainian nationalism arose and resisted Soviet domination; Stepan Bandera is the face of that resistance and he has a checkered past, including Nazi collaboration. As Hitler came to power the Soviets engaged him and the Ukraine was a trophy for both. The Nazis occupied Ukraine for three years and were initially viewed by Ukrainians, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, as liberators. Thus Jewish collaboration. Then came the events of the linked article which suggest that the Nazi attempted extermination of Jews from Europe began in Ukraine. I can only assume after thst any Jewish collaboration was coerced. But as the Soviets repelled the Nazis you have to wonder if the Soviets were seen as benefactors. I cannot locate it at the moment but I have read that Ukraine was a refuge for escaping Nazis after WWII. The recent Canadian hoopla would lend support to that in my estimation.After the fall of the USSR Ukraine became the modern country it is now. She was heavily armed with nuclear weapons and neither NATO nor Russia wanted that. Talks were had between Ukraine, the US, the UK, and Russia with the upshot being an agreement that Ukraine would surrender her nuclear weapons and would remain neutral. In return her territorial sovereignty was recognized. Had she maintained that neutrality it seems to me she would have been in a position of extraordinary power. Instead she is known almost universally as a nation of extraordinary corruption and corruptibility. That being said, given her history just in the 20th century it is not surprising. Ukraine could not employ the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Either way. If the enemy is the USSR you make friends with Nazis? If the enemy is Germany, you make friends with Russians? It was lose-lose. That has to blunt the national psyche.
You had a good summary going there until you got to the Russian propaganda part, and then it went off the rails. Ukraine's territorial integrity was never in question in 1994 as part of the nuclear talks. That is just fanciful imagination right there. Her territorial integrity was recognized immediately after the USSR dissolution together with Russia's, and not questioned by anyone until 2022.
Ukraine never agreed to remain neutral. She just agreed to give up nuclear weapons based on security guarantees provided by Russia, the US, and the UK, who each agreed to respect her sovereignty. An agreement that was promptly forsaken by Russia in 2004 when it attempted to sway the Ukrainian presidential elections in favor of its preferred corrupt-as-hell, twice-convicted criminal candidate Yanukovich, which prompted the 2004 Orange revolution. Since then, Russia had a fixation on getting their guy installed, which they managed to do finally in 2010. He proceeded to rob the country blind for the next 4 years with his cronies, when the next election came around, in 2014, Russia again spent a few billion dollars in cash to buy off the votes. It is at that point that the majority of Ukrainians, who voted against him, recognized that they would most likely not survive another 4 years of Yanukovich robbing the country naked, rebelled, and he escaped to Russia, leaving his houses with pure-gold toilet bowls behind.
There, fixed it for you.
I won’t condemn the guy until I get details. He joined the SS. Why? Did he commit brutal acts?
elected officials are not given a test they just get elected , ignorance of history is not a factor intelligence is not considered either
Trudeau blocked bank accounts from protesters and had the police run over with a horse over them. This is an excellent lesson in History on how tyrants emerge and come to power, even in democracies or so called "first world countries". As an immigrant from a third world I am appalled on how the left quickly went to 1984 mode so fast. I guess it can happen anywhere.
Never thought I would see Machiavelli in action.
never mind that Manlesstoba just elected a drunk wife beating taxi beating money order stealing primier https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7mfvqXWgAA4M5l?format=jpg&name=medium
Machiavelli is much maligned.
It’s shocking to witness what’s happening in Canada under Trudeau. From the freezing of bank accounts, to the censorship of media Bill C18, calling the entire country racist, the mass grave hoax, the WE scandal, SNC scandal, collapse of our economy, election interference from China, the list goes on and on. During his leadership, our first Indigenous attorney general, health minister, finance minister, Governor General, Clerk of the Privy Council (most senior civil servant), ambassador to China, defense minister, Trudeau’s own principal secretary and the Speaker of the House have all been fired or forced to resign in disgrace and scandal. And a few weeks ago, Trudeau’s wife left him. That says a lot.
It isn't at all surprising to me that Leftists want to give Trudeau a pass for all this.
They give him a pass for everything else.
Could you imagine a conservative being allowed to skate on wearing blackface, molesting a female reporter, manhandling female mps that oppose him and a host of other sins?
He is almost literally the worst canadian example possible.
Facebook shows "memories" of stuff you posted years ago, and a little while back it reminded me of a comment I had made back in the Obama years, back when I still bothered posting about political subjects on fb.
I had stated that Obama could *literally* screw a poodle on the White House lawn in broad daylight and the Democrats would not have a problem with it. That seems equally applicable now to Trudeau and Canada's Leftists.
His wife married the money and name but even she couldn’t stomach living with an agent of the Chinese govt
Not anymore. But it took 8 years for people to clue in.
I won't be surprised if Poilievre clapping, like everyone else in Parliament, isn't featured in Liberal attack ads "proving" he's a secret Nazi.
Say what you will, he does have nice hair
And Adolf liked dogs.
I almost never comment on goings on in other countries. I don’t understand them, I don’t know their culture, and I hate it when other countries opine on ours like they know something. Trudeau, though, I hope is deposed. I almost feel sorry for our neighbors to the north before I remember that they willingly elected his dumbass twice. His entire agenda is to say the opposite of the US while stripping any freedom that he can find. He’s a totalitarian, an intellectual lightweight, and a bad person, and I don’t say any of that lightly.
But let's remember that he has never received anywhere near 50% of the popular vote and currently has a minority government that could be brought down quickly by a vote of non confidence. However the Liberals are backed up by the ideologically similar NDP party and the two parties together have more than enough seats to govern.
Whose leader is likely to be next in line for a Hindutva bullet.
Even worse is he has been elected three times (2015, 2019 and 2021).
I sometimes wonder if he is taking marching orders from DC
“Let’s see how much blowback Justy gets on this idea, we can proportionalize from there”
(Straightens tin foil hat)
He is his father's son and the apple hasn't fallen very far at all. About the only saving grace is he is, by the looks of it, stupider. As it is Canada is about five minutes from an Enabling Act unless the opposition gets a shift-on.