> I feel like the people protesting the Vietnam war would be regarded by the current online zeitgeist as “pro-Mao”.
Many of them were extremely strong supporters of Ho Chi Minh (they used to call him the Vietnamese George Washington), the Viet Cong and — yes — even Mao. Mao’s ‘little red book’ was a popular accessory for anti-war protesters of the time.
More akin to WWII.. not vietnam. The US was reluctant to join, and was home to millions who were quite happy with Hitler. [1][2]
"In 1940, a group of Yale University students founded the America First Committee to oppose US intervention in the European war." [1]
"In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe." [2]
"During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Dotcom has repeatedly spread anti-Ukrainian falsehoods, and Russian government propaganda. Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
As with all Wikipedia refs, review their sources yourself.
> Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
At least the claim regarding nazism is very valid. Heck, Ukraine has a whole bataillon using that emblem[1], featuring a rune-like SS symbol and the freaking black sun! People having been accused of nazism in the US or Europe for way less than that.
The implication of US in the Maiden Revolution, which is one root of the problem, is also documented in serious newspapers[2].
The claim is that Ukraine is controlled by nazis and therefore Russian intervention is needed to free the Ukrainian people from nazi control, not that there are nazis in Ukraine (which is obviously true, the same way it's true that there are nazis in Russia, Germany, the US and many other places).
— Alexey Milchakov, field commander of the Rusich neo-Nazi paramilitary group in russia.
The war was never about Nazism. The russians use the word “Nazi” to describe anyone who opposes russia. The official russian position on WWII is that it started in 1941 (when Operation Barbarossa started, and not the invasion of Poland), and russia’s official position is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact never existed.
Russia is full of Nazis, and the russians were allied with Nazi Germany in WWII.
I think we often forget that Russian propaganda is also often aimed at Russians and not the west.
Nazis invaded Russia and calling their neighbors Nazis is meant to invoke fear and imminent danger to the Russian people. It’s a completely different vibe than calling right wingers Nazis in the US
The Russians have a strange relationship with Nazism. They enthusiastically partnered with Hitler in 1939 to take over Europe and only went 'anti nazi' when Hitler turned on them.
They now call their opponents nazis when they behave more like the German nazi party than any other country on earth. I can't help but think it's a propaganda thing to call the enemies nazis to distract from behaving that way themselves.
I mean who rolled tanks into Ukraine to grab the territory for themselves and drive their 'lesser people' into submission? Putin's invasion is pretty much a copy of Hitlers.
The exact protocol was kept secret. But the alliance itself was no secret at all -- the whole world knew about it, and there were open "victory parades" in major cities like Brest, Lwów, and Grodno. They even built elaborate "Victory Arches" with swastikas and red stars side by side.
If that doesn't count as a signal of "enthusiasm", I don't know what does.
So what? First of all, was that even a Russian disinformation campaign? Second, and more importantly, so what? Imagine you're fighting the government of a powerful country that's trying to imprison you because they said you committed some crimes when you never even visited that country. Wouldn't you do anything you could to try and discredit them? Kim is fighting for his life.
> was that even a Russian disinformation campaign?
According to a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report and the prosecutor on the case[0], it originated with a document from the SVR.
> So what?
People (like Dotcom, who chose to pretend he had evidence), organizations (like Fox, etc who pushed this daily for months with zero evidence) and governments (like Russia’s who try to divide the U.S. by using freedom of speech as a weapon) who seek to muddy the waters of our collective information pool are scourges and should be treated as such.
> When you say pro-Putin, do you mean actually pro-Putin or just for ending the war in Ukraine?
Any suggestion to end the war involving Ukraine's capitulation (giving territories, being blocked from joining NATO or other defensive alliances, etc.) is being pro-Putin.
It's quite exhausting to read people like you parroting the "end the war in Ukraine" euphemism to mean "give in to Putin's demands". Chamberlain would be proud...
Yeah...it's pretty hilarious how the American left is now the pro-war side and being against it and not wanting more war after over 2 decades of it means you're a Russian asset.
That is not what is happening here with Dotcom though.
Kim Dotcom spreads misinformation and in doing so provides justification for russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine. It’s no different from someone saying about WWII that the Jews had it coming.
It is an entirely accurate sentence. They did invade Ukraine (I would know; I was there), they have committed mass atrocities against the civilian population, and they have stolen thousands of children. These comprise the literal definition of the word genocide.
If I could prove that stance as morally incorrect? I’m sorry? Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous? Would you be comfortable sharing this position with your parents or your employer?
>Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?
This is, unironically, why people got tired of the left in the US. I don't mean to start controversy on that particular topic (the US election), only remark that I never suggested something even remotely close to that and yet you somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win".
"Do you want to donate to the victims of hurricane X?" "Nope." "Oh, I see, so you want them to DIE!"
People. are. tired. of. that.
>Would you be comfortable sharing this position with your parents or your employer?
Absolutely! My parents love me for who I am and I don't have to pretend to be anyone else, but me, for them to accept me. They would be the last people on Earth I would hide something from. I'm also fortunate enough to be in a work environment where mature people can say what they think without fear of being discriminated, judged or profiled by it. Would recommend.
You’ve done the same thing you accuse them of doing. You also “somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win”.” They asked "Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?" — it wasn’t a statement that I could read into. Unlike the combination of statements they replied too.
>There's people in the world who believe it's justified. (russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine)
>Even if somehow you could prove that stance as being morally incorrect …
Implies that proof is needed to call Ukrainian genocide morally incorrect. If that is not what you meant, then I would be curious to also know what was meant, not because Ukraine-Russia, my emotions don't have a dog in that fight and I won't be jumping into it--simply for better understanding of the phrasing/wording, not a big deal thou tbh.
I, personally, read their response as being confused to the implications and posing questions asking for clarification.
The ending part about being comfortable sharing that position, I would take as an emotional bit that should be discarded if following the rules of the site to participate in good faith (not assuming the worst) due to their stated closeness to the situation. (I also don’t agree with the wording of the sentence before the part you say is loaded, I think it was a poor choice of words; not to the point of using antagonism as a response though)
Maybe you have your own closeness to something that would make your sounding off on genocide more palpable (somehow)..but was not stated, so them asking for clarification was not at all assuming the worst. Maybe you also used a poor choice of words, but instead of saying so when someone questioned it you went into this “gotcha ‘win’” thing you accuse them of.
It. is. as. tiring. as. things. the. “left”. does. Both "sides" simply do it in their own ways.
