Posted on 09/27/2023 12:46:45 PM PDT by EnderWiggin1970
Western cheerleaders for the war in Ukraine have sought to deny the complicated relationship between Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazi groups, calling any discussion of a Nazi past or present in Ukraine a “Putin talking point.” But the truth can only be suppressed for so long, and it recently burst forth in what should have been a sleepy session of the Canadian Parliament.
In the midst of introducing Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy for yet another address to the House of Commons, Speaker Anthony Rota recognized 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka as a Ukrainian war hero for fighting the Soviet Union during World War II, apparently unaware that Hunka had volunteered for the Waffen-SS Galicia division, a Nazi military unit notorious for horrific war crimes.
An entire roomful of MPs, along with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a fist-pumping Zelensky, rose in a standing ovation for Hunka. Rota has effusively apologized for his mistake, but the embarrassing spectacle reveals some of the flaws in Western thinking about this war.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
Trudeau needs a distraction...more blackface buffoonery would do it.
The original version of the movie “The Producers” is one of my favorite movies of all time, ever.
Also up there is “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World”... When Ethel Merman is screaming at her son the shut up and listen I swear I almost p***ed my pants laughing so hard.
This embarrassing debacle had nothing to do with the thinking on the war one way or the other. The House of Commons leader didn't do his homework on who the man was.
Yes. Talk about not doing your homework.
Didn’t we have an Army officer (Who fought in Korea and Vietnam) who was former SS? Those WW II SS Ukrainians were sent to fight on the Western Front, where they shot their German officers, deserted, and surrendered their weapons to the French resistance. Oh? And Ukraine wants to join NATO? Not the best of allies to have if you ask me.
This idiocy was comparable to having a Congressional Gold Medal awarded to the last surviving pilot of a Japanese dive bomber at Pearl Harbor.
(Western cheerleaders for the war in Ukraine)
Another wonderful result of having Potato Joe in office........
Communist, Nazi, is there really any difference?
Seen 'em both Hilarious. When Ethel Merman is screaming at Dick Shawn aka, Sylvester Marcus he was dancing with that gal when the call came in. Mr Cool LOL. ;O)
OMG that means my two favorite moves have Dick Shawn in common.
They guy got around. ;O)
And Russia was on all three.
“Three sides”.
Did you mean the Ukrainians welcomed the Wehrmacht as saviors from the hated Soviet Communists? (Which they did).
“Communist, Nazi, is there really any difference?”
The Nazis didn’t conspire to starve to death their country’s own Breadbasket. (No “Holodomor”).
German Communists eventually sided with the Nazis as Nazis consolidated their power in the late 1930s.
Are you referring to the neutral countries beyond those in the Allies or the Axis? Honest question.
You have the German–Polish declaration of non-aggression from 1934; the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance from 1935; the Franco-Italian Agreement of 1935; and the Anglo-German Agreement of 1935; etc.
After the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, Maxim Litinov (the USSR Commissar for Foreign Affairs from 1930 to 1939) tried furiously to arrange for a tripartite pact with Britain and France (with Stalin being aware of his proposals) as early as April of 1939. However, because of general Western disdain for the Bolsheviks and internal Soviet concerns (unfounded or otherwise) about the West attempting to play Nazi Germany against the USSR, the winds began to favor a non-aggression pact with Germany instead; Litinov fell out of favor, and was removed from his position (partly because, as a Jew, it would signal the seriousness of the Soviets regarding the new non-aggression pact in Hitler's eyes).
For all that Molotov-Ribbentrop was a shock to the West (who had been expecting the USSR/Britain/France tripartite pact to come through), all it did was stall the inevitable, since Hitler (who loathed Slavs and Communism as a matter of principle) continued making plans for the eventual German invasion of the USSR.
Given the various attempts at playing Germany against the Soviets prior to Molotov-Ribbentrop, as well as the inevitability of Hitler's invasion of the USSR, I don't think treating Russia as a separate 'side' works, since there was never a point (at least that I'm aware of) where the Soviets fought with or against the Allies and the Axis simultaneously; it was either one or the other.
(As far as Japan goes, the Soviets had a neutrality pact with them that had been signed in April 1941. Even after the German invasion of the USSR months later, Japan and Russia maintained this neutrality, as it was beneficial to both parties: it allowed Japan to focus on the West's colonies in southeast Asia [which meant its primary opponent was the United States, given the Pacific Fleet's presence], while it allowed Russia to redeploy its forces from the east to bring to bear against the Nazi invasion. Then again, this neutrality essentially cemented the de facto reality that imperial Japan had shifted its strategic focus away from resources in Siberia to those of Dutch East Indies, particularly after a Soviet-Mongolian force rebuffed a Japanese incursion in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in 1939.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.