"I live here now"
-
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?
-
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.
That was like 2500 years ago. There are Palestinians today who still carry the keys of the houses they were forced out of.
Should I have the right to go to Africa and kick people out of their houses, on the basis that all humans are believed to have originally come from Africa? There's a statute of limitations at some point, surely.
-
Fascists are murdering both ukrainians and palestinians. Grow up, lib.
Exactly, the Nazis in the Ukrainian government are sending Ukranians into meat grinders for the profits of the U.S. empire
-
You trust an anti-communist british ambassador at their word?
I trust someone who was actually there more than a random user on the internet, yes. If you have a source that shows the opposite, feel free to share.
-
That was like 2500 years ago. There are Palestinians today who still carry the keys of the houses they were forced out of.
Should I have the right to go to Africa and kick people out of their houses, on the basis that all humans are believed to have originally come from Africa? There's a statute of limitations at some point, surely.
Hey so this is my grandma house
-
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?
This is kind of interesting considering that you've claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
I claimed the russification process was more severe, not the executions. It's well known that as a part of destalinization the executions largely stopped. That doesn't mean the Union stopped promoting russification.
If you have a source that claims the opposite, feel free to share it.
-
Hey so this is my grandma house
Where's she from?
-
Where's she from?
Right over there
-
Right over there
That's rough. Watch out for the retaliatory strikes provoked by your expansionist apartheid regime.
There's probably a country out there that would accept you as a refugee, if you ever get tired of living on the front lines.
-
Yes. I wish they would.
Especially if the government said that those people were not allowed to participate in the political process, but given that the US political process is a joke and a sham, I don't have any sort of belief in "upholding its territorial integrity" or anything like that.
Legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, does it not?
See how I was able to immediately provide a very clear answer to your question? Now do mine.
Yes. I wish they would.
Now why do you wish the Mexican government would provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries, exactly?
-
Yes. I wish they would.
Now why do you wish the Mexican government would provide Spanish speaking protesters in LA with artillery systems and missile batteries, exactly?
wrote last edited by [email protected]So, do you remember how British colonists Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin went to France to negotiate for French military aid against the British, and how Lafayette arriving with that aid was vital to the success of the American Revolution? Well, I happen to be of the opinion that when people say that Trump is a fascist or is acting like a king, and that "in America, we don't do kings," that those words actually have meaning and aren't just empty slogans.
The real question is, why do y'all think it would be bad for people resisting fascism to have access to artillery systems and missile batteries?
Btw, still no answer to my original question.
-
So, do you remember how British colonists Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin went to France to negotiate for French military aid against the British, and how Lafayette arriving with that aid was vital to the success of the American Revolution? Well, I happen to be of the opinion that when people say that Trump is a fascist or is acting like a king, and that "in America, we don't do kings," that those words actually have meaning and aren't just empty slogans.
The real question is, why do y'all think it would be bad for people resisting fascism to have access to artillery systems and missile batteries?
Btw, still no answer to my original question.
I'm not OP, I'm just pointing out your not answering questions either, as you're so keen on pointing out. (Didn't read the rest of your vomit, because braaaaaaaa)
-
I'm not OP, I'm just pointing out your not answering questions either, as you're so keen on pointing out. (Didn't read the rest of your vomit, because braaaaaaaa)
wrote last edited by [email protected]your not answering questions either
Didn’t read
How do you know I'm not answering questions if you didn't read what I wrote?
-
your not answering questions either
Didn’t read
How do you know I'm not answering questions if you didn't read what I wrote?
Didn't read the last comment
-
Didn't read the last comment
-
You're being intentionally obtuse. Good luck with that
-
I trust someone who was actually there more than a random user on the internet, yes. If you have a source that shows the opposite, feel free to share.
I wonder if you'd apply the same standard in reverse. If a Chinese ambassador says something about the US, should I just take them at their word with no further evidence, until someone can prove that their claim is wrong?
