"I live here now"
-
I'm not the one who took down the Catherine the Great statue in Odessa.
The most sacrilegious act: taking down statues.
-
Yeah, the famous communist hating "Russians" deciding to write in Ukrainian in the 1840s.
Alexander II. banned any publications in Ukrainian. But yeah, totally just fascist Russians lol.
God I'm so fucking tired of idiot liberals who refuse to read history and think their ignorant fucking smarm is the same as knowledge
-
The most sacrilegious act: taking down statues.
anyway back to tearing down statues celebrating the defeat of the nazis and putting up statues that celebrate the nazis
-
Hey let's switch examples and see if your logic stands up. The name Los Angeles is Spanish. Because Spanish speakers have been there longer than English speakers. If the Spanish speakers don't like the president of the United States, does that mean it's perfectly acceptable for the Mexican government to provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries? Or is that fucking weird?
A downvote is not an answer btw.
There is a mild secessionist movement in CA. People of all ethnicities in the city can dissaprove of the oppression taking place. Pre-2022, ask in Donbas was just autonomy from nazis shelling it relatively indiscriminantly. CA even if it were to ask for military help from Mexico or China, wouldn't have as first choice to join as one of their provinces. In both cases, independence is more about humanist self determination rather than ethnic loyalties even if the fascist oppression is centered on extermination of ethnic/liberal "sub humans"
-
That's even further back. I'm talking about the period when the Russian empire controlled the territory. During that time (+100 years), there was far more economic integration with the Ruthenians than there was with Russia proper. It made more logistical sense, it's the same reason for which Crimea was ceded to Ukraine by the Soviets, Kiev due to its positioning was better suited to administratively control it.
The tsar sought to increase his influence over the region and began the process of russification, to tie the valuable region to Russia proper. The Soviets accelerated this, as they did in most of the other Soviet states.
Also thanks to ml mods to shut down any discussion. Come on, you're better than just censoring comments.
You dont get to post vibes base ahistoric nonsense (like you again did) then cry about mods "censoring" you.
-
Huh, I wasn't expecting a comic critical of Russia's Ukraine invasion in this comm.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Fascists are murdering both ukrainians and palestinians. Grow up, lib.
-
Hey let's switch examples and see if your logic stands up. The name Los Angeles is Spanish. Because Spanish speakers have been there longer than English speakers. If the Spanish speakers don't like the president of the United States, does that mean it's perfectly acceptable for the Mexican government to provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries? Or is that fucking weird?
A downvote is not an answer btw.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Who is upvoting this racist lib fantasy? smh.
Everyone should rise up against this disgusting empire regardless of their "language".
-
The Soviets accelerated this
Do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever for the claim that Russiafication was worse under the Soviets than under the tsar? Because if not, the mods are well within their rights to remove your unsupported claims as misinformation.
Sure, here's a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai
The Soviets pursued korenization initially, which actually revived efforts towards Ukrainization. But this was later stopped and reversed to pursue a single Soviet identity with the Russian language. Ukrainian culture was suppressed and even Ukrainian membership of the communist party declined sharply. Russification intensified under Khrushchev and later Brezhnev.
-
It should have started “these guys live here now.”
What guys? The fascist invaders?
-
Sure, here's a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai
The Soviets pursued korenization initially, which actually revived efforts towards Ukrainization. But this was later stopped and reversed to pursue a single Soviet identity with the Russian language. Ukrainian culture was suppressed and even Ukrainian membership of the communist party declined sharply. Russification intensified under Khrushchev and later Brezhnev.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Sure, here’s a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai
That's an entire book, about an entirely different topic, written by the British ambassador working in the last few years of the USSR.
Do you at least have a page number where he compares Ukraine during the USSR compared to Tsarist Russia? It is specifically the claim that Donbass was was more heavily suppressed than in Tsarist Russia that I'm disputing.
-
God I'm so fucking tired of idiot liberals who refuse to read history and think their ignorant fucking smarm is the same as knowledge
You are now a liberal if you don't think every Ukrainian is a fascist.
-
It's a complicated issue to solve, and I'm not the person to solve it but the Russian state's approach has basically been in every single way wrong.
The Russian ethnic minority and it's treatment is a domestic issue. It is not a suitable pretext for Russia to invade a country, bomb schools and hospitals, and force Ukrainians into either a smaller portion of their country or to live under an ethnostate that does not represent them. Putin has naked imperial ambitions not just in Ukraine but also in Georgia.
I'm now gonna block you, as I do everyone with pro-Russia views. Because anyone that can excuse Russia's actions is not worthy of my attention.
I’m now gonna block you
You absolute baby
-
That's even further back. I'm talking about the period when the Russian empire controlled the territory. During that time (+100 years), there was far more economic integration with the Ruthenians than there was with Russia proper. It made more logistical sense, it's the same reason for which Crimea was ceded to Ukraine by the Soviets, Kiev due to its positioning was better suited to administratively control it.
The tsar sought to increase his influence over the region and began the process of russification, to tie the valuable region to Russia proper. The Soviets accelerated this, as they did in most of the other Soviet states.
Also thanks to ml mods to shut down any discussion. Come on, you're better than just censoring comments.
The soviets did not expand russification, it was the opposite. They preserved and made official tons of minority languages (yiddish comes to mind), even establishing publishing houses in these languages. In addition to the SSRs that preserved the national identities and cultures of the given republics, the soviets instituted protections for minorities within these ssrs.
-
That's a weird looking pen.
It's the pen that writes history
-
The soviets did not expand russification, it was the opposite. They preserved and made official tons of minority languages (yiddish comes to mind), even establishing publishing houses in these languages. In addition to the SSRs that preserved the national identities and cultures of the given republics, the soviets instituted protections for minorities within these ssrs.
Initially this is absolutely true! Under Lenin particularly this was very much promoted "indiginenisation" iirc it's best translated as in English. But particularly under Khrushchev and later Breznhnev this very much changed, focusing on the single Soviet identity.
They didn't really prosecute these minorities mind, just very much promoted the Soviet culture and Russian language in a large variety of ways.
-
Sure, here’s a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai
That's an entire book, about an entirely different topic, written by the British ambassador working in the last few years of the USSR.
Do you at least have a page number where he compares Ukraine during the USSR compared to Tsarist Russia? It is specifically the claim that Donbass was was more heavily suppressed than in Tsarist Russia that I'm disputing.
Page 151 has what you're looking for:
The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’. Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued. Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination. In fact it was a sign that the Russians did not need their own party, since they dominated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and exercised effective central control over the republican parties. Throughout the Soviet period discontent flared up from time to time in one or other of the constituent republics, and was brutally suppressed.
-
Well wasn't the excuse that the Jews had that land originally then over the history of time there were land disputes. I forget the whole history of it but that's a bit I remember.
-
Page 151 has what you're looking for:
The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’. Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued. Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination. In fact it was a sign that the Russians did not need their own party, since they dominated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and exercised effective central control over the republican parties. Throughout the Soviet period discontent flared up from time to time in one or other of the constituent republics, and was brutally suppressed.
The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’.
So the British ambassador asserts that the Soviets did the same thing as the Tsars but it was "more brutal." What, specifically, does "more brutal" mean here? As in, more people affected? What were the numbers? Where did he get those? Am I just expected to take his word for it?
Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued.
This is kind of interesting considering that you've claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination.
Where does this information come from? Were there polls on whether Russians saw this as discrimination? Or is it anecdotal/vibes based, something that the British ambassador simply assumes the Russians must have felt?
-
Fascists are murdering both ukrainians and palestinians. Grow up, lib.
-
Page 151 has what you're looking for:
The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’. Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued. Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination. In fact it was a sign that the Russians did not need their own party, since they dominated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and exercised effective central control over the republican parties. Throughout the Soviet period discontent flared up from time to time in one or other of the constituent republics, and was brutally suppressed.
You trust an anti-communist british ambassador at their word?
