Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

odessa massacre

knights of malta and military catholic ops have been very active in west ukraine as they were in croatia in the nineties. These cunts are up to no good nobody can disagree with that. I donet see how this discredits anti maidan suppoters these guys will tell you the same there pretty clued up about the nwo
 
I thought the Soviets actually, in the end, were pretty open about what had happened. Funnily enough, I do not find it that sensitive an issue in Russia or amongst Russians (there have been many famines in Russia's history).
Again, an interesting one. In the 80s when soviet party bosses were admitting it happened, ambassadors were working hard to deny or underplay it (particularly in Canada which has one of the largest Ukrainian populations in the world. The ambassador (sorry, forgotten his name) sent a pamphlet to every elected member in Canada telling them why it didn't happen. And recently Russia today has started taking contributions from Boris Borisov who is of the 'not a big deal' school of thought, so I wonder if the pendulum is swinging again. I think there is general agreement that some people died, but if you dig a bit- how many? Where? Why? You still end up with deliberate man made famine/genocide (ie Holomor) at one end and regrettable, accidental/natural, minor and/or widespread on the other. And lots of grey inbetween.
 
AS anyone got any details about numbers by the ukrainian embassy toady i think a welsh group was there fair play to them always hard to blag the welsh and more strong in ther working class roots
 
Soviet nationalities policy was designed to remove Ukrainian national identity. The language was banned, their poets and historians were killed, there was a policy of assimilation. That's not an emotive statement, its just fact.

It depends on when? It seems more like a difficult period of compromise and reaction more than design, related to the shifting policies and priorities of the central Soviet authorities from the 1920s into the 30s, when a more consistent 'Stalinist' tendency gelled within the government.

At a time when terror (more than once) was used to remove the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia from positions in recently created Soviet institutions, put in place by the earlier policy direction of korenizatsiya (or 'indigenisation,' although iirc Stalin himself never used that term but nationalisation instead), efforts were under way to simultaneously intensify those soft cultural policies (Kaganovich in the NEP 1920s).

There was an urban bias with regard to indigenisation and Ukrainian-Russian conflict (a Russian-speaking working class in the industrial Donbass) as well. As daft as it might sound, Stalin was always against full-on assimilation, even when the status of the Russians in the USSR came to be that of first among 'equal' Soviet nationalities under socialism.
 
ukrainian prisoners of war were selected in german camps trained and formed into the infamous bandera ss regiments of which there was two. these beasts killed civilans in large numbers in lviv mostly poles jews and everyone else who they could find.
the same thing had happened in 1918 .
ukrainian nationalism is a tool of the imperial west.
the same as russian nationalist stephen rogozin these guys also fought against there own people in ww2
 
ukrainian prisoners of war were selected in german camps trained and formed into the infamous bandera ss regiments of which there was two. these beasts killed civilans in large numbers in lviv mostly poles jews and everyone else who they could find

That's all very nice but completely irrelevant - are you one of the many people who now believes WW2 was a big zionist conspiracy?
 
Urah
It depends on when? It seems more like a difficult period of compromise and reaction more than design, related to the shifting policies and priorities of the central Soviet authorities from the 1920s into the 30s, when a more consistent 'Stalinist' tendency gelled within the government.

At a time when terror (more than once) was used to remove the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia from positions in recently created Soviet institutions, put in place by the earlier policy direction of korenizatsiya (or 'indigenisation,' although iirc Stalin himself never used that term but nationalisation instead), efforts were under way to simultaneously intensify those soft cultural policies (Kaganovich in the NEP 1920s).

There was an urban bias with regard to indigenisation and Ukrainian-Russian conflict (a Russian-speaking working class in the industrial Donbass) as well. As daft as it might sound, Stalin was always against full-on assimilation, even when the status of the Russians in the USSR came to be that of first among 'equal' Soviet nationalities under socialism.
yeah- later post I expand a bit.

Would be interested in your view on the resurgence of nationalism across the ex Soviet Union. More than nationalism really, tribalism. Any idea why it has taken off with such force? I mean I know the Soviet Union vacillated between suppression and promotion (within limits) of national identities, I know the internal boundaries changed creating little groups of people who identify themselves with very local national causes, I know most of the countries that succeeded had artificial boundaries and make limited historical sense, but it does seem to have taken off with quite terrifying virulence.
 
You've answered both yes and no to the same question :facepalm:

as if 9/11 wasn't enough, we now find out that jooz also did world war two :(
 
It depends on when? It seems more like a difficult period of compromise and reaction more than design, related to the shifting policies and priorities of the central Soviet authorities from the 1920s into the 30s, when a more consistent 'Stalinist' tendency gelled within the government.

At a time when terror (more than once) was used to remove the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia from positions in recently created Soviet institutions, put in place by the earlier policy direction of korenizatsiya (or 'indigenisation,' although iirc Stalin himself never used that term but nationalisation instead), efforts were under way to simultaneously intensify those soft cultural policies (Kaganovich in the NEP 1920s).

There was an urban bias with regard to indigenisation and Ukrainian-Russian conflict (a Russian-speaking working class in the industrial Donbass) as well. As daft as it might sound, Stalin was always against full-on assimilation, even when the status of the Russians in the USSR came to be that of first among 'equal' Soviet nationalities under socialism.

So, there was no fear of Russian nationalism (a la Tito and the Serbs)? I always associated the liquidation of the Cossacks as an attack on traditional Russian identities.
 
Back
Top Bottom