You just need to know who fought against the Russians in Ukrane during World War 2. Its not exactly a history degree. Even just assuming no one on the team had even a high-school level of history knowledge (already a bad sign), the fact that no one thought to actually look into the deeds they were praising him for is pathetic.
I don’t remember the particulars of what happened on the Eastern Front being taught in my high school history classes. The Canadian military was concentrated on the Western Front, so what little detail was covered was concentrated there as well.
Also, when I was in high school, the Ukraine was not an independent nation, but part of the USSR—I don’t think our classes even mentioned it had ever been separate. Actually, I’m not sure it was even once mentioned by name. This would be the case for the majority of the MPs as well, as I expect more of them than not were born before 1980.
The “in Ukraine” part was mostly for history nerds and those who’d want to play semantics. My point was that no one had the thought, “Hmmm. He fought against Russia, one of the Allies. That seems suspect.” I wouldn’t be shocked if a couple people missed it, but surely you’d have more than a couple people invlovled in planning this, and these are people for whom history is more relevant than most. Besides that, even if no one knew that Ukraine involved in the fight between Nazi Germany and the USSR, you’d hope there’d be someone to vet him who would at least find that out.
The fact that Rota’s entire team, who should have done the vetting, appear to have been asleep at the wheel, looks either negligent or malicious on someone’s part, yes. Doesn’t mean that the other MPs should automatically have known. The fact that Russia was one of the Allies didn’t get mentioned a hell of a lot during the Cold War years either, when they were The Enemy. Maybe they collectively should all have gone in for a refresher on eastern European history after the current war started, but I can understand why they might have had other priorities.
Yeah, I can understand those listening to the speech not immediately picking up the connection, considering there was only one chance (rather than the vetting process) and people probably weren’t paying much attention in the first place. I’d have hoped more would have, but its not that suprising. Its just the complete incompetence involved in those who vetted Hunka and who researched, wrote, and editted the speech that shockes me.
Yeah this is it for me. I’m not a liberal, but it’s very reasonable of every MP to think:
the speaker wouldn’t invite a Nazi to be celebrated in the HoC, this guy must have been in the underground or something
Or honestly if Rota had said something like:
In WW2 Hunka was indoctrinated by Nazi propaganda, and had his patriotism twisted to support the Nazi regime against the Soviets. He fought in the Nazi SS Galician division against the USSR, seeking an independent Ukraine. He is horrified by the atrocities and genocide the SS and others committed in service of Nazism. He renounced his oath to Hitler at the first opportunity, but never gave up his support for an independent Ukraine. He is proud of Ukrainians like Zelensky fighting for a Ukraine that embraces democracy and freedom.
Not ideology, but they did largely fight with the Nazi military. I’m aware of the partisan groups as well, but the average person won’t be, and many of them are also pretty controversial as well. That said, my point wasn’t whether or not Hunka is or isn’t a Nazi ideologicaly. Its that telling the world a Waffen-SS soldier was a hero with no understanding of the situation at all is a terrible, stupid idea. If a government is honouring someone, they should, at the very least, know the details of what they’re honouring them for, which they clearly didn’t. If they did know they’d be honouring a Waffen-SS member, they would have avoided it for the bad press alone. Even assuming he joined purely to fight off the Soviets rather than any alligence to Nazism, and assuming he committed no war crimes, and they were okay risking the bad press, they should have known to check his background to confirm his innocence before presenting him as a hero in front of the world.
You’re twisting my words. I’m not saying they described him as a Waffen-SS hero. I’m saying they praised him as a hero, despite him being a Waffen-SS soldier (which, notably, is exactly the combat service they’re praising him for, although again, not my point) without understanding the situation.
If they actually knew that the service they were thanking him for was as a Waffen-SS soldier, why the resignation and the panicked apologies. They clearly had no idea of who they were promoting as a hero or the context of his service. If they had, they would have mentioned it to get ahead of media attention, prepared statements to defend themselves, or even just picked someone who would have attracted less bad press. If our government officials don’t know fairly basic history (esspecially at a time when it ties in to current politics) and can’t even be bothered to understand what they’re promoting as heroism, it doesn’t bode well foe their ability to decide on policy that will affect millions of people.
These are not connected thoughts. Someone who saved a cat stuck in a tree, who is also a murderer, is still a cat-saving hero. The murderous act does not invalidate the cat heroism.
No, but if the mayor planned to honour him in a speech on national television, it would be common sense to include something to the point of, “Despite coming from a rocky beginnings, he has made great strides and today, is a hero.” in order to specifically recognize the act of valor and not anything else. Or, even more basic, pick someone who you know isn’t a murder who achived something similar to honour. These aren’t exactly complex ideas. But again we didn’t even get that far, its common sense to do the research to even check if the person has a criminal background or something similar that would reflect badly on you to ignore (nonetheless praise). They couldn’t even do that much. Even if you think it shouldn’t reflect badly on them, it very obviously will, and it doesn’t take a expect to know that praising a Waffen-SS member as a hero does not look good. Again, if they thought that was okay to praise him, why all the apologies and the resignation.
The representatives’ job is to represent the people, not to make decisions for the people.
Yes, this is why they just sit there after we vote for them. They have no impact or imput on national policy or law whatsoever and should not be expected to have any knowledge on such matters. Its not like they’re representing us in a goverment or anything.
The Nazi’s plan to eliminate Slavs, including Ukrainians, and repopulate their territory with German settlers is well established. They partially carried out the plan by murdering millions of Slavs, millions of those being specifically Ukrainians. Their ultimate goal was to totally eliminate us. Are you entirely misinformed or lying and carrying water for nazis intentionally?
Its stuff like that, that are why I specified, “In Ukraine.” I know theres more actual compelxity on the Eastern Front, but I don’t really expect people to know that much. I’m only really expecting people to know “Nazis vs Soviets on the Eastern Front” since thats about the depth of coverage in school. Even that should be enough raise some red flags somewhere in the vetting process and/or the speech writting.
I mean, if they have that much knowledge of WW2, then they should understand the potential of Hunka being involved with the Nazis, and/or with the war crimes on the Eastern Front. My point is that you don’t even need to get to that level of depth or firmiliarity to see potential issues that could arise. Clearly they didn’t consider even the basic red flags that could come with an understanding of the depth, “Soviets vs Nazis on the Eastern Front.” No one involved in preparing the speech and inviting Hunka even thought to check which division he served in, nonetheless ensure he wasn’t a war criminal.
Like, everyone’s name?
You just need to know who fought against the Russians in Ukrane during World War 2. Its not exactly a history degree. Even just assuming no one on the team had even a high-school level of history knowledge (already a bad sign), the fact that no one thought to actually look into the deeds they were praising him for is pathetic.
I don’t remember the particulars of what happened on the Eastern Front being taught in my high school history classes. The Canadian military was concentrated on the Western Front, so what little detail was covered was concentrated there as well.
Also, when I was in high school, the Ukraine was not an independent nation, but part of the USSR—I don’t think our classes even mentioned it had ever been separate. Actually, I’m not sure it was even once mentioned by name. This would be the case for the majority of the MPs as well, as I expect more of them than not were born before 1980.
The “in Ukraine” part was mostly for history nerds and those who’d want to play semantics. My point was that no one had the thought, “Hmmm. He fought against Russia, one of the Allies. That seems suspect.” I wouldn’t be shocked if a couple people missed it, but surely you’d have more than a couple people invlovled in planning this, and these are people for whom history is more relevant than most. Besides that, even if no one knew that Ukraine involved in the fight between Nazi Germany and the USSR, you’d hope there’d be someone to vet him who would at least find that out.
The fact that Rota’s entire team, who should have done the vetting, appear to have been asleep at the wheel, looks either negligent or malicious on someone’s part, yes. Doesn’t mean that the other MPs should automatically have known. The fact that Russia was one of the Allies didn’t get mentioned a hell of a lot during the Cold War years either, when they were The Enemy. Maybe they collectively should all have gone in for a refresher on eastern European history after the current war started, but I can understand why they might have had other priorities.
Yeah, I can understand those listening to the speech not immediately picking up the connection, considering there was only one chance (rather than the vetting process) and people probably weren’t paying much attention in the first place. I’d have hoped more would have, but its not that suprising. Its just the complete incompetence involved in those who vetted Hunka and who researched, wrote, and editted the speech that shockes me.
Yeah this is it for me. I’m not a liberal, but it’s very reasonable of every MP to think:
Or honestly if Rota had said something like:
I think it would have been okay.
Not everyone who fought against russia in Ukraine was a Nazi, regardless of what russia tries to say
Not ideology, but they did largely fight with the Nazi military. I’m aware of the partisan groups as well, but the average person won’t be, and many of them are also pretty controversial as well. That said, my point wasn’t whether or not Hunka is or isn’t a Nazi ideologicaly. Its that telling the world a Waffen-SS soldier was a hero with no understanding of the situation at all is a terrible, stupid idea. If a government is honouring someone, they should, at the very least, know the details of what they’re honouring them for, which they clearly didn’t. If they did know they’d be honouring a Waffen-SS member, they would have avoided it for the bad press alone. Even assuming he joined purely to fight off the Soviets rather than any alligence to Nazism, and assuming he committed no war crimes, and they were okay risking the bad press, they should have known to check his background to confirm his innocence before presenting him as a hero in front of the world.
deleted by creator
You’re twisting my words. I’m not saying they described him as a Waffen-SS hero. I’m saying they praised him as a hero, despite him being a Waffen-SS soldier (which, notably, is exactly the combat service they’re praising him for, although again, not my point) without understanding the situation.
If they actually knew that the service they were thanking him for was as a Waffen-SS soldier, why the resignation and the panicked apologies. They clearly had no idea of who they were promoting as a hero or the context of his service. If they had, they would have mentioned it to get ahead of media attention, prepared statements to defend themselves, or even just picked someone who would have attracted less bad press. If our government officials don’t know fairly basic history (esspecially at a time when it ties in to current politics) and can’t even be bothered to understand what they’re promoting as heroism, it doesn’t bode well foe their ability to decide on policy that will affect millions of people.
deleted by creator
No, but if the mayor planned to honour him in a speech on national television, it would be common sense to include something to the point of, “Despite coming from a rocky beginnings, he has made great strides and today, is a hero.” in order to specifically recognize the act of valor and not anything else. Or, even more basic, pick someone who you know isn’t a murder who achived something similar to honour. These aren’t exactly complex ideas. But again we didn’t even get that far, its common sense to do the research to even check if the person has a criminal background or something similar that would reflect badly on you to ignore (nonetheless praise). They couldn’t even do that much. Even if you think it shouldn’t reflect badly on them, it very obviously will, and it doesn’t take a expect to know that praising a Waffen-SS member as a hero does not look good. Again, if they thought that was okay to praise him, why all the apologies and the resignation.
Yes, this is why they just sit there after we vote for them. They have no impact or imput on national policy or law whatsoever and should not be expected to have any knowledge on such matters. Its not like they’re representing us in a goverment or anything.
deleted by creator
Just mostly. The not Nazis in Ukraine were busy fighting against the genocidal force intent on eliminating them, aka the Nazis.
That is completely untrue. The communists were more intent on commiting genocide against Ukrainians than the Nazis were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
The Nazi’s plan to eliminate Slavs, including Ukrainians, and repopulate their territory with German settlers is well established. They partially carried out the plan by murdering millions of Slavs, millions of those being specifically Ukrainians. Their ultimate goal was to totally eliminate us. Are you entirely misinformed or lying and carrying water for nazis intentionally?
I don’t believe I learnt about Finland fighting against the USSR in WW2.
Its stuff like that, that are why I specified, “In Ukraine.” I know theres more actual compelxity on the Eastern Front, but I don’t really expect people to know that much. I’m only really expecting people to know “Nazis vs Soviets on the Eastern Front” since thats about the depth of coverage in school. Even that should be enough raise some red flags somewhere in the vetting process and/or the speech writting.
“Soviets allied with Nazis on the Eastern Front” was very much a real thing.
And the parts that the USSR invaded are part of modern day Ukraine. Ukrainians literally fought a Soviet/Nazi invasion in WWII.
I mean, if they have that much knowledge of WW2, then they should understand the potential of Hunka being involved with the Nazis, and/or with the war crimes on the Eastern Front. My point is that you don’t even need to get to that level of depth or firmiliarity to see potential issues that could arise. Clearly they didn’t consider even the basic red flags that could come with an understanding of the depth, “Soviets vs Nazis on the Eastern Front.” No one involved in preparing the speech and inviting Hunka even thought to check which division he served in, nonetheless ensure he wasn’t a war criminal.