|
|
On March 08 2014 12:44 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 12:40 Salazarz wrote:
The dumbest thing about this whole situation is that short of getting massive donations from EU, Ukraine has very little to gain by 'switching sides' from working with Russia to opening up to EU other than structural reforms that helped places like Slovakia or Poland to overcome their Communist heritage to a point where their economies are now 2x of what the Ukrainian is, and they started off at a worse base line
Worse base line ? Those countries were always richer (significantly so) than Ukraine. True, the disparity increased recently, but they were never worse off.
|
On March 08 2014 17:43 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 12:44 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 12:40 Salazarz wrote:
The dumbest thing about this whole situation is that short of getting massive donations from EU, Ukraine has very little to gain by 'switching sides' from working with Russia to opening up to EU other than structural reforms that helped places like Slovakia or Poland to overcome their Communist heritage to a point where their economies are now 2x of what the Ukrainian is, and they started off at a worse base line Worse base line ? Those countries were always richer (significantly so) than Ukraine. True, the disparity increased recently, but they were never worse off.
Polish consumer boom of the 70s was financed by borrowing from the West, when that credit line was cut Poland was in a much more sever economic crisis than Ukraine of the 1980s that at the time was semi-booming thanks to increased defense spending caused by the Afghanistan war -- but also the subsequent reforms that began in the 80s meant that Poland would return to growth by 92. You are right, Slovakia was richer than Ukraine but not by much.
Ukraine only became truly impoverished in the 1990s when that entire decade it basically suffered a contraction. They need reforms they should have done in the early 90s.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/world/europe/russias-move-into-ukraine-said-to-be-born-in-shadows.html
An examination of the seismic events that set off the most threatening East-West confrontation since the Cold War era, based on Mr. Putin’s public remarks and interviews with officials, diplomats and analysts here, suggests that the Kremlin’s strategy emerged haphazardly, even misleadingly, over a tense and momentous week, as an emotional Mr. Putin acted out of what the officials described as a deep sense of betrayal and grievance, especially toward the United States and Europe.
Some of those decisions, particularly the one to invade Crimea, then took on a life of their own, analysts said, unleashing a wave of nationalistic fervor for the peninsula’s reunification with Russia that the Kremlin has so far proved unwilling, or perhaps unable, to tamp down.
The decision to invade Crimea, the officials and analysts said, was made not by the national security council but in secret among a smaller and shrinking circle of Mr. Putin’s closest and most trusted aides. The group excluded senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the cadre of comparatively liberal advisers who might have foreseen the economic impact and potential consequences of American and European sanctions.
The exclusions of other advisers, the analysts and officials said, underscored his increasing conservatism since he returned to the presidency in 2012 after a stint as prime minister and faced not only popular protests but also mounting criticism from the United States and Europe of the country’s record on political and human rights. “He has bit by bit winnowed out the people who challenged his worldview,” Mr. Galeotti said.
|
On March 08 2014 18:29 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 17:43 mcc wrote:On March 08 2014 12:44 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 12:40 Salazarz wrote:
The dumbest thing about this whole situation is that short of getting massive donations from EU, Ukraine has very little to gain by 'switching sides' from working with Russia to opening up to EU other than structural reforms that helped places like Slovakia or Poland to overcome their Communist heritage to a point where their economies are now 2x of what the Ukrainian is, and they started off at a worse base line Worse base line ? Those countries were always richer (significantly so) than Ukraine. True, the disparity increased recently, but they were never worse off. Polish consumer boom of the 70s was financed by borrowing from the West, when that credit line was cut Poland was in a much more sever economic crisis than Ukraine of the 1980s that at the time was semi-booming thanks to increased defense spending caused by the Afghanistan war -- but also the subsequent reforms that began in the 80s meant that Poland would return to growth by 92. You are right, Slovakia was richer than Ukraine but not by much. Ukraine only became truly impoverished in the 1990s when that entire decade it basically suffered a contraction. They need reforms they should have done in the early 90s. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/world/europe/russias-move-into-ukraine-said-to-be-born-in-shadows.htmlShow nested quote +An examination of the seismic events that set off the most threatening East-West confrontation since the Cold War era, based on Mr. Putin’s public remarks and interviews with officials, diplomats and analysts here, suggests that the Kremlin’s strategy emerged haphazardly, even misleadingly, over a tense and momentous week, as an emotional Mr. Putin acted out of what the officials described as a deep sense of betrayal and grievance, especially toward the United States and Europe.
Some of those decisions, particularly the one to invade Crimea, then took on a life of their own, analysts said, unleashing a wave of nationalistic fervor for the peninsula’s reunification with Russia that the Kremlin has so far proved unwilling, or perhaps unable, to tamp down.
The decision to invade Crimea, the officials and analysts said, was made not by the national security council but in secret among a smaller and shrinking circle of Mr. Putin’s closest and most trusted aides. The group excluded senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the cadre of comparatively liberal advisers who might have foreseen the economic impact and potential consequences of American and European sanctions.
The exclusions of other advisers, the analysts and officials said, underscored his increasing conservatism since he returned to the presidency in 2012 after a stint as prime minister and faced not only popular protests but also mounting criticism from the United States and Europe of the country’s record on political and human rights. “He has bit by bit winnowed out the people who challenged his worldview,” Mr. Galeotti said.
My first reaction was based on my personal knowledge of 2 of those countries in the 80s and forward, and Ukraine in the 90s. From that perspective quality of life difference was rather significant. Slovakia even more so as Czechoslovakia was probably richest communist country except possibly East Germany, although Slovakia was the poorer part. To justify my personal experience I checked the GDP per capita rates and even Poland seems to have 75%+ higher GDP per capita then Ukraine in 1990, which seems like a good year for the base rate.
|
On March 08 2014 17:38 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 12:00 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 11:54 Wegandi wrote:On March 08 2014 11:49 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 11:45 oneofthem wrote:
on the russian side of things, idk how strong nazis are getting in ukraine but it does seem to be a serious issue. the u.s. approach to it seems to be that 'we'll take care of that later' and a bit of dirty laundry not aired. but for things to move forward this element has to be dealt with.
the confrontation though, unless russia wants to march onto kiev and throw these dudes out, won't solve it. Well, we will get to see in May how strong the fascist element is. Ideally the current government in Kyiv will highlight to all Ukrainians that its mainly Russian-Ukrainians soldiers and sailors who are being threatened and blockaded in Crimea and arent surrendering/betraying their oath to the country and so make a clear distinction between Putin's fascist state and the common Russian who is stuck in it. But no doubt about it, the fascists could just go on tv and blame it all on Russians instead of Putin. But again -- at its most popular -- the fascist party was the 5th most popular party in Ukraine, after even the Communists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)#2012_elections:_further_supportSvoboda (National Socialist Party of Ukraine) received nearly 11% last election, and most of that came from Western Ukraine, whereas it received <1% in Eastern Ukraine (where most Russians are). 1. Making them the 5th most popular in that election, behind the Communists. Before Timoshenkos arrest in 2010 those voters for the most part were hers. And the new party -- the reformist Udar -- that also made its debut in these elections went from nowhere to being the 3rd most popular party.
If Eastern Ukraine splinters off to Russia you can expect Svoboda to become even more powerful than they all ready are (who occupy many top Government positions right now).
Ministry of Agriculture, Ecology, the vice prime minister and the temporary solicitor general. No defense, no internal security, no economy, no ethnic relations protfolio Such a lovely technocrat ready to indebt his nation to IMF lords. Since Ukraine is already in debt and the choice is between reforms that might allow Ukraine to exist its current trajectory as the Bolivia of Europe onto the Polish trajectory its worth trying. Did something change ? I saw somewhere they also got defense and general prosecutor. Also got National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.
The guy who is acting minister of defense is in Svoboda, supposedly, but he was also Yanukoich's Commander of the Navy for 4 years so I dont know, I think like a lot of politicians in the East he has flexible loyalties to political programs.
Yarosh is the Deputy National Security but he is even less popular than Svoboda in terms of national politics and he is sitting there with all the technocrats
|
On March 08 2014 17:43 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 12:44 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 12:40 Salazarz wrote:
The dumbest thing about this whole situation is that short of getting massive donations from EU, Ukraine has very little to gain by 'switching sides' from working with Russia to opening up to EU other than structural reforms that helped places like Slovakia or Poland to overcome their Communist heritage to a point where their economies are now 2x of what the Ukrainian is, and they started off at a worse base line Worse base line ? Those countries were always richer (significantly so) than Ukraine. True, the disparity increased recently, but they were never worse off.
Wut? Ukraine and Poland had exactly the same gdp in 1989, and when Poland started reforms, it lost 25% of its gdp in a year. Ukraine reformed later so they only lost gdp in the middle of the 90s.
Here's a handy site for historical data.
|
On March 08 2014 18:42 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 18:29 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 17:43 mcc wrote:On March 08 2014 12:44 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 12:40 Salazarz wrote:
The dumbest thing about this whole situation is that short of getting massive donations from EU, Ukraine has very little to gain by 'switching sides' from working with Russia to opening up to EU other than structural reforms that helped places like Slovakia or Poland to overcome their Communist heritage to a point where their economies are now 2x of what the Ukrainian is, and they started off at a worse base line Worse base line ? Those countries were always richer (significantly so) than Ukraine. True, the disparity increased recently, but they were never worse off. Polish consumer boom of the 70s was financed by borrowing from the West, when that credit line was cut Poland was in a much more sever economic crisis than Ukraine of the 1980s that at the time was semi-booming thanks to increased defense spending caused by the Afghanistan war -- but also the subsequent reforms that began in the 80s meant that Poland would return to growth by 92. You are right, Slovakia was richer than Ukraine but not by much. Ukraine only became truly impoverished in the 1990s when that entire decade it basically suffered a contraction. They need reforms they should have done in the early 90s. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/world/europe/russias-move-into-ukraine-said-to-be-born-in-shadows.htmlAn examination of the seismic events that set off the most threatening East-West confrontation since the Cold War era, based on Mr. Putin’s public remarks and interviews with officials, diplomats and analysts here, suggests that the Kremlin’s strategy emerged haphazardly, even misleadingly, over a tense and momentous week, as an emotional Mr. Putin acted out of what the officials described as a deep sense of betrayal and grievance, especially toward the United States and Europe.
Some of those decisions, particularly the one to invade Crimea, then took on a life of their own, analysts said, unleashing a wave of nationalistic fervor for the peninsula’s reunification with Russia that the Kremlin has so far proved unwilling, or perhaps unable, to tamp down.
The decision to invade Crimea, the officials and analysts said, was made not by the national security council but in secret among a smaller and shrinking circle of Mr. Putin’s closest and most trusted aides. The group excluded senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the cadre of comparatively liberal advisers who might have foreseen the economic impact and potential consequences of American and European sanctions.
The exclusions of other advisers, the analysts and officials said, underscored his increasing conservatism since he returned to the presidency in 2012 after a stint as prime minister and faced not only popular protests but also mounting criticism from the United States and Europe of the country’s record on political and human rights. “He has bit by bit winnowed out the people who challenged his worldview,” Mr. Galeotti said. My first reaction was based on my personal knowledge of 2 of those countries in the 80s and forward, and Ukraine in the 90s. From that perspective quality of life difference was rather significant. Slovakia even more so as Czechoslovakia was probably richest communist country except possibly East Germany, although Slovakia was the poorer part. To justify my personal experience I checked the GDP per capita rates and even Poland seems to have 75%+ higher GDP per capita then Ukraine in 1990, which seems like a good year for the base rate.
What data set are you using for the Polish GDP per capita? Most descriptions I've read highlight the shut down of most capital spending in Poland in the 80s as it dealt with its foreign debt load/and highlight the total collapse of the Ukrainian economy in the 90s so from the point of view of personal experiences its quite possible to have seen both a not-so-poor Poland and an incredibly poor Ukraine.
|
On March 08 2014 13:19 Sub40APM wrote:
And people who sympathize with a vague anti-American stance or a wholly pro-Russian stance seem preoccupied with a party that came in 5th place in the less elections -- behind even the Communist Party -- and received less votes than National Front did in France or the Vlams Block in Belgium and has never formed a government the way the Freedom Party has in Austria. The first President of Croatia -- the Croatia that is now an EU member - was an honest to goodness war criminal that would have sat in the dock along Milosevic had he not died while Svoboda's candidate at the last poll conducted has the support of ~4% for the presidency.
How many of these parties you've mentioned are glorifying genocidal mass murderers and claiming they continue their legacy, though? How many of them want to discriminate against ethnic minorities that have lived in their countries for generations?
And, please, stop purposefully omitting the fact that Svoboda has ~20-30% support in Western Ukraine, and something around 30-40% in the three provinces that have always been the bastion of Banderites. Having 10% support evenly spread across Ukraine, and having major support in one part of Ukraine and almost none in another are two completely different things. The former means that they can be easily pacified, whereas the latter severely increases the tensions between different regions and is a serious issue in case of a civil war (it'll be easier for them to rally people around their extremist ideas).
Did Svoboda indeed received the Ministry of Education? If so, this is very sad, considering their revisionist policies... :<
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Svoboda-2012.png)
|
On March 08 2014 18:51 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 13:19 Sub40APM wrote:
And people who sympathize with a vague anti-American stance or a wholly pro-Russian stance seem preoccupied with a party that came in 5th place in the less elections -- behind even the Communist Party -- and received less votes than National Front did in France or the Vlams Block in Belgium and has never formed a government the way the Freedom Party has in Austria. The first President of Croatia -- the Croatia that is now an EU member - was an honest to goodness war criminal that would have sat in the dock along Milosevic had he not died while Svoboda's candidate at the last poll conducted has the support of ~4% for the presidency. How many of these parties you've mentioned are glorifying genocidal mass murderers and claiming they continue their legacy, though?
Well, since most of them are in democratic Western European states with rules of law, a developed civil society and a strong middle class only the Croatian guy? Seems like going from war criminal president to full EU membership only took 17 years. So perhaps a party whose presidential candidate polls at only 3.8% of the national vote can be squelched as well?
How many of them want to discriminate against ethnic minorities that have lived in their countries for generations?
Actually it seems like a fair number of them do, as anti-foreigner sentiment has increased throughout Europe.
And, please, stop purposefully omitting the fact that Svoboda has ~20-30% support in Western Ukraine, and something around 30-40% in the three provinces that have always been the bastion of Banderites.
In the 2012 elections. In the 2007 they are invisible. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Ukrainian_parliamentary_election%2C_2007_%28first_place_results%29.PNG)
Now we can interpret this in many ways, one way is to say that between 2007 and 2012 Ukrainians in the three oblasts you highlight became insane genocide loving psychopaths. Or that Ukrainians who historically would have voted for Tymoshenko in those regions chose not to as a protest against her arrest. Just like the Communists also doubled their share of the vote as a protest vote.
Now previously in this thread you have stated that Banderovtsi are worse than Nazis so I can see why the first interpretation is more appealing to you. But I hope you are wrong, and I am mildly optimistic that in May we'll see how little support they actually have. Of course with the crisis in Crimea -- as I have mentioned -- there is certainly potential for radicalization of Ukrainian nationalism if the technocrats in charge now act in a foolish manner -- ie by not celebrating the Russian-Ukrainians in Crimea who are defending their oaths and Ukrainian army bases under intense pressure.
Oh and as someone whose mothers family is from Zakarpatia -- which is in the West but has never been part of Poland/Galicia and only had the Banderovtzi on our territory after the Sudatenland crisis -- I would appreciate if you stop using the term Western Ukraine in connection to the nazis. As you can clearly see on the map Zakarpatia is not voting for fascists and neither is Ivano Frankivsk or Vintisia or a bunch of other provinces that are in the West. The overboard term just keeps adding to the false narrative that there is this simple West vs. East battle, the situation is much more complicated.
Having 10% support evenly spread across Ukraine, and having major support in one part of Ukraine and almost none in another are two completely different things. The former means that they can be easily pacified, whereas the latter severely increases the tensions between different regions and is a serious issue in case of a civil war (it'll be easier for them to rally people around their extremist ideas).
Why cant they be easily pacified if they are in one specific region? I guess if you believe in the narrative that all 'West Ukrainians' are the same yes, but why not believe in a narrative that says Ukrainians who live in the West and didnt vote for the Nazis would be as opposed to them as Ukrainians who live in the East? Is it a civil war when 90% of the population opposes you?
Did Svoboda indeed received the Ministry of Education? If so, this is very sad, considering their revisionist policies... :<
No it did not.
|
As a matter of fact, the love for Bandera and his murderous militants has always been present in those parts of Ukraine. It's just that Timoshenko and Yushchenko satisfied those cravings well enough:
1) Yushchenko's bloc together with Timoshenko's bloc in 2004 organized a protest against the then-president's idea/decision to issue a formal apology to Poland for the genocide UPA-OUN/Bandera were responsible for, under the slogan "Volhynia - our soil; OUN and UPA - our heroes".
"W sierpniu 2004 kierowany przez niego Blok Nasza Ukraina był współorganizatorem (razem z Blokiem Julii Tymoszenko) akcji pod hasłem: "Wołyń – ukraińska ziemia; OUN i UPA – nasi bohaterowie". Pikietowano m.in. pod polską ambasadą. Uczestnicy protestów domagali się, aby prezydent nie przepraszał Polaków za rzeź wołyńską."
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktor_Juszczenko#Stosunek_do_OUN_i_UPA
2) Since the beginning of his presidency, Yushchenko promoted a policy of historical revisionism and whitewashing of the genocidal activity of UPA/OUN and their leaders. He supported "history" institutes that were doing this.
"Po wygranych wyborach w 2005 prezydent Wiktor Juszczenko promował działalność państwowych instytutów mających prowadzić politykę historyczną (zwaną skrótowo "OUN-UPA-Hołodomor"), w tym gloryfikować działalność organizacji uznawanych przez część badaczy za faszystowskie i winne zbrodni ludobójstwa: OUN i UPA[5]."
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktor_Juszczenko#Stosunek_do_OUN_i_UPA
http://carlbeckpapers.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/cbp/article/view/164
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CHgQFjAI&url=http://ww2-historicalmemory.org.ua/docs/eng/Rudling.doc&ei=oRcXU9yeG4GR4ATR_ICwDw&usg=AFQjCNG3-l-3ijdVKUVmtZcnXsRM-GnxtQ&sig2=YvDXYwXw6bDSJYxY2R1ZRw&bvm=bv.62286460,d.bGE&cad=rja
3) In 2006, he rehabilitated OUN/UPA militants responsible for the genocide, issuing a decree which officially recognized them as "freedom fighters". In his speech he stated that OUN was one of the cornerstones of the Ukrainian state.
http://www.president.gov.ua/ru/news/4356.html
http://www.president.gov.ua/ru/news/4356.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/international/newsid_6052000/6052212.stm
http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/politics/167226-yushchenko-podpisal-ukaz-po-vosstanovleniyu-istoricheskoj-spravedlivosti-po-otnosheniyu-k-voinam-oun-upa
4) In 2007, Yushchenko officially declared Roman Shukhevich a "Hero of Ukraine" (Shukhevich was to Bandera what Eichmann was to Hitler in terms of the genocide of Volhynia and the Holocaust, respectively).
http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/6808.html
http://www.foa.ualberta.ca/en/Research/~/media/arts/Research/celebration_jph_march28.pdf
5) Finally, in 2010, he did the same for Bandera.
http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/46/2010
http://www.foa.ualberta.ca/en/Research/~/media/arts/Research/celebration_jph_march28.pdf
And, yes, Banderites were worse than Nazis. They simply did not have enough resources to match Nazis. Just compare the methods the former and the latter used to kill people. Compared to Banderites, Nazis seem almost civilized...
In Lvov, Bandera sympathizers have been erasing Polish presence in this city, claiming it's always been a Ukrainian city. They are building statues for mass murderers, the Cemetery of the Defenders of Lwów regularly suffers from acts of vandalism, many people from Polish minorities fear speaking Polish in public.
edit: Okay, my mistake. Serhiy Kvit is apparently not a member of Svoboda, just a sympathizer and a member of some other far-right organisations.
edit 2: I don't know about the city itself, but the oblast of Ivano-Frankivsk has certainly voted for facists. Look at the map I posted. If I am not mistaken, the three oblasts where Svoboda had the most support were those of Lvov, Tarnopol and Ivano-Frankivsk.
And I've been using the term "Western Ukrainians" meaning those who live on land that used to belong to Poland. Meant no offence.
|
On March 08 2014 19:04 maybenexttime wrote:
2) Since the beginning of his presidency, Yushchenko promoted a policy of historical revisionism and whitewashing of the genocidal activity of UPA/OUN and their leaders. He supported "history" institutes that were doing this.
Yes. And his presidency ended with him winning 5.45% of the vote in the 2010 elections, making him literally the least popular political leader in Ukrainian history and yet still more popular than the latest polls on the Svoboda leader in any putative elections. Democracy worked at least in the negative of removing a stupid and incompetent man, and appeals to fascism failed. Just like they will fail in May.
And, yes, Banderites were worse than Nazis. They simply did not have enough resources to match Nazis. Just compare the methods the former and the latter used to kill people. Compared to Banderites, Nazis seem almost civilized...
I can no longer continue this conversation with you. Good day.
|
On March 08 2014 19:10 Sub40APM wrote:
Yes. And his presidency ended with him winning 5.45% of the vote in the 2010 elections, making him literally the least popular political leader in Ukrainian history and yet still more popular than the latest polls on the Svoboda leader in any putative elections. Democracy worked at least in the negative of removing a stupid and incompetent man, and appeals to fascism failed. Just like they will fail in May.
Yes, he lost horrobily, but for different reasons, which is pretty fucking obvious since he used the UPA-OUN glorification rhetoric extensively in the presidential campaign he won...
I can no longer continue this conversation with you. Good day.
Because you are clueless when it comes to the genocide of Volhynia.
|
No, maybenexttime, you're way out of line.
|
On March 08 2014 18:49 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 17:43 mcc wrote:On March 08 2014 12:44 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 12:40 Salazarz wrote:
The dumbest thing about this whole situation is that short of getting massive donations from EU, Ukraine has very little to gain by 'switching sides' from working with Russia to opening up to EU other than structural reforms that helped places like Slovakia or Poland to overcome their Communist heritage to a point where their economies are now 2x of what the Ukrainian is, and they started off at a worse base line Worse base line ? Those countries were always richer (significantly so) than Ukraine. True, the disparity increased recently, but they were never worse off. Wut? Ukraine and Poland had exactly the same gdp in 1989, and when Poland started reforms, it lost 25% of its gdp in a year. Ukraine reformed later so they only lost gdp in the middle of the 90s. Here's a handy site for historical data.
You are correct, I checked first reasonably looking data set and that showed what I posted earlier. Have now checked more data sources and it seems it was rather off compared to the others.
|
On March 08 2014 19:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
No, maybenexttime, you're way out of line.
Educate yourself on the methods UPA-OUN used to torture and kill people (they always tortured before killing).
|
On March 08 2014 19:39 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 19:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
No, maybenexttime, you're way out of line. Educate yourself on the methods UPA-OUN used to torture and kill people (they always tortured before killing).
Yes they, did that. However saying that the "manufacture of death" that nazis instituted was civilized, even in comparison to the wandering hordes murdering people is a gross overstatement.
|
On March 08 2014 19:43 Roman666 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 19:39 maybenexttime wrote:On March 08 2014 19:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
No, maybenexttime, you're way out of line. Educate yourself on the methods UPA-OUN used to torture and kill people (they always tortured before killing). Yes they, did that. However saying that the "manufacture of death" that nazis instituted was civilized, even in comparison to the wandering hordes murdering people is a gross overstatement.
I am talking about the methods used to kill people. The goals were the same - exterminate all people of X ethnicity of Y land. Nazis were far worse in terms of numbers. Banderites - in terms of methods.
|
On March 08 2014 19:46 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 19:43 Roman666 wrote:On March 08 2014 19:39 maybenexttime wrote:On March 08 2014 19:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
No, maybenexttime, you're way out of line. Educate yourself on the methods UPA-OUN used to torture and kill people (they always tortured before killing). Yes they, did that. However saying that the "manufacture of death" that nazis instituted was civilized, even in comparison to the wandering hordes murdering people is a gross overstatement. I am talking about the methods used to kill people. The goals were the same - exterminate all people of X ethnicity of Y land. Nazis were far worse in terms of numbers. Banderites - in terms of methods.
Nazis were no strangers when it comes to torture either.
|
On March 08 2014 18:49 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 17:43 mcc wrote:On March 08 2014 12:44 Sub40APM wrote:On March 08 2014 12:40 Salazarz wrote:
The dumbest thing about this whole situation is that short of getting massive donations from EU, Ukraine has very little to gain by 'switching sides' from working with Russia to opening up to EU other than structural reforms that helped places like Slovakia or Poland to overcome their Communist heritage to a point where their economies are now 2x of what the Ukrainian is, and they started off at a worse base line Worse base line ? Those countries were always richer (significantly so) than Ukraine. True, the disparity increased recently, but they were never worse off. Wut? Ukraine and Poland had exactly the same gdp in 1989, and when Poland started reforms, it lost 25% of its gdp in a year. Ukraine reformed later so they only lost gdp in the middle of the 90s. Here's a handy site for historical data.
Ah very good site. It looks like it reports 2012 as the most recent data. GDP is a very interesting measure, specifically the difference that may occur between nominal and PPP GDPs. For example, Russia's nominal GDP is $2 trillion, but their PPP is $3.4 trillion. Post-communist states have varied histories, surprisingly. Some moved relatively painlessly, while some like Russia basically collapsed again before making progress.
|
On March 08 2014 19:46 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2014 19:43 Roman666 wrote:On March 08 2014 19:39 maybenexttime wrote:On March 08 2014 19:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
No, maybenexttime, you're way out of line. Educate yourself on the methods UPA-OUN used to torture and kill people (they always tortured before killing). Yes they, did that. However saying that the "manufacture of death" that nazis instituted was civilized, even in comparison to the wandering hordes murdering people is a gross overstatement. I am talking about the methods used to kill people. The goals were the same - exterminate all people of X ethnicity of Y land. Nazis were far worse in terms of numbers. Banderites - in terms of methods.
This is true, while Nazi's had the means to ether shoot/gas ect. their allies in occupied territory often resorted to the use of hammers, knives and truly medieval ways of killing people because they just didn't have the ammunition or the infrastructure to kill people in an effective way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II
Within nations occupied by the Axis Powers, some citizens, driven by nationalism, ethnic hatred, anti-communism, anti-Semitism, or opportunism knowingly engaged in collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Some of these collaborationists committed the worst crimes and atrocities of the Holocaust.[1]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
