Everybody knows that a lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth has even got its boots on.

And the ongoing turmoil over Canada’s parliament recognizing former SS trooper Yaroslav Hunka highlights one of the most important reasons why.

Something that’s untrue but simple is far more persuasive than a complicated, nuanced truth — a major problem for Western democracies trying to fight disinformation and propaganda by countering it with the truth, and one reason why fact-checking and debunking are only of limited use for doing so.

In the case of Hunka, the mass outrage stems from his enlistment with one of the foreign legions of the Waffen-SS, fighting Soviet forces on Germany’s eastern front. And it’s a demonstration of how when history is complicated, it can be a gift to propagandists who exploit the appeal of simplicity.

This history is complicated because fighting against the USSR at the time didn’t necessarily make you a Nazi, just someone who had an excruciating choice over which of these two terror regimes to resist. However, the idea that foreign volunteers and conscripts were being allocated to the Waffen-SS rather than the Wehrmacht on administrative rather than ideological grounds is a hard sell for audiences conditioned to believe the SS’s primary task was genocide. And simple narratives like “everybody in the SS was guilty of war crimes” are more pervasive because they’re much simpler to grasp.

Canada’s enemies have thus latched on to these simple narratives, alongside concerned citizens in Canada itself, with the misstep over Hunka being used by Russia and its backers to attack Ukraine, Canada and each country’s association with the other.

According to Russia’s ambassador in Canada, Hunka’s unit “committed multiple war crimes, including mass murder, against the Russian people, ethnic Russians. This is a proven fact.” But whenever a Russian official calls something a “proven fact,” it should set off alarms. And sure enough, here too the facts were invented out of thin air. Repeated exhaustive investigations — including by not only the Nuremberg trials but also the British, Canadian and even Soviet authorities — led to the conclusion that no war crimes or atrocities had been committed by this particular unit.

But this is just the latest twist in a long-running campaign by the Russian Embassy in Ottawa, dating back even to Soviet times, when the USSR would leverage accusations of Nazi collaboration for political purposes as part of its “active measures” operations.

And given Moscow’s own history of aggression and atrocities during World War II and its aftermath, there’s a special cynicism underlying the Russian accusations. Russia feels comfortable shouting about “Nazis,” real or imaginary, in Ukraine or elsewhere, because unlike Nazi Germany, leaders and soldiers of the Soviet Union were never put on trial for their war crimes. Russia clings to the Nuremberg trials as a benchmark of legitimacy because as a victorious power, it was never subjected to the same reckoning. And yet, both before and after their collaborative effort to carve up eastern Europe between them, the Soviets and the Nazis had so much in common that it’s now illegal to point these similarities out in Russia.

Yet, it’s not just enemies of democracy that are subscribing to the seductively simple. Jewish advocacy groups in Canada have been understandably loud in their condemnation of Hunka’s recognition. But here, too, accusations risk being influenced more by misconception and supposition than history and evidence.

The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center registered its outrage, noting that Hunka’s unit’s “crimes against humanity during the Holocaust are well-documented” — a statement that doesn’t seem to have any more substance than the accusation by Russia.

In fact, during previous investigations of the same group carried out by a Canadian Commission of Inquiry, Simon Wiesenthal himself was found to have made broad accusations that were found to be “nearly totally useless” and “put the Canadian government to a considerable amount of purposeless work.”

The result of all this is that otherwise intelligent people are now trying to outdo each other in a chorus of evidence-free condemnation.

In Parliament itself, Canadian Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman called Hunka “a monster.” Meanwhile, Poland’s education minister appears to have decided to first seek Hunka’s extradition to Poland, then try to determine whether he has actually committed any crime afterward. And the ostracism is now extending to members of Hunka’s family, born long after any possible crime could have been committed during World War II.

The episode shows that dealing with complex truths is hard but essential. Unfortunately, though, a debunking or fact-checking approach to countering disinformation relies on an audience willing to put in the time and effort to read the accurate version of events, and be interested in discovering it in the first place. This means debunking mainly works for very specific audiences, like government officials, analysts, academics and (some) journalists.

But most of the rest of us, especially when just scrolling through social media, are instead likely to have a superficial and fleeting interest, which means a lengthy exposition of why a given piece of information is wrong will be far less likely to reach us and have an impact.

In the Hunka case, commentary taking a more balanced view of the complex history does exist, but it’s rare, and when it does occur, it is by unfortunate necessity very long — a direct contrast to most propaganda narratives that are successfully spread by Russia and its agents. Sadly, an idea simple enough to fit on a T-shirt is vastly more powerful than a rebuttal that has to start with “well, actually . . .”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has now issued an apology in his own name over Hunka’s ovation too. However, any further discussion of the error has to be carefully phrased, as any suggestion that Canada is showing contrition for “honoring a Nazi” would acquiesce to the rewriting of history by Russia and its backers, and concede to allegations of Hunka’s guilt that have no basis in evidence.

It’s true that Hunka should never have been invited into Canada’s House of Commons. But that’s not because he himself might be guilty of any crime. Rightly or wrongly, on an issue so toxic, it was inevitable the invitation would provide a golden opportunity for Russian propaganda.

  • Blue and Orange@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ridiculous how some are trying to obfuscate the man’s involvement with Nazism. He joined a Nazi organisation, he’s a Nazi. Nazis are bad and should not be allowed to escape justice. Call a pig a pig.

    • baconisaveg
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not disagreeing with you, but going to church on Sunday does not make you a christofacist.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      There were 8.5 million members of the Nazi party. Should they have all gone to jail?

      • jcrm@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure. Why not.

        It’s more nuanced than that, but if you’re going to reduce it to make your vague pro-Nazi point, then fuck off, yes throw them all in prison.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not making a pro-Nazi point. I’m making an anti-oversimplification point. The eastern front of World War II was a huge mess, you can’t neatly divide it up between “good guys” and “bad guys.”

          Which is not saying that Nazis were good guys, obviously. That’s the whole point. There weren’t clear-cut “good guys.” There were terrible people and awful people and people being forced to choose between those or die.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have asked people who accuse me of that to point to any actual comment I’ve made where I’ve said anything at all that was nice about the Nazis. So far nobody has responded to any of those questions.

      • someguy3
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you commit war crimes, then you go to jail. You have, you know, a trial. C’mon this has been sorted out a long time ago but you’re acting like gosh darn how can this ever be solved.

          • someguy3
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            After reading more of this thread, you are either portraying your position absofuckinglutely terribly, or you are a Nazi apologist but when countered you meekly agree and say “that’s my point”. Nowhere do you actually make “your point”, only when you’re cornered.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The point I’ve been trying to make throughout this thread is that both the Nazis and the Soviets were terrible to the people of Eastern Europe, so the people on the ground were faced with a choice between two monsters. The fact that some of them chose the wrong side does not automatically make them bad people. That is also the point of the article OP posted.

              The problem is that there are a lot of people who see the situation in absolutely black and white terms. There has to be a “good guy” and a “bad guy”, and those who side with the “good guy” are good and those who side with the “bad guy” are bad. Since one of the sides here is Hitler, then obviously that means whoever was fighting against him must be the “good guys”. It’s not as simple as that. But of course, now that I’ve gone and said that, bam I go off into the “bad guy” category as far as those people are concerned.

              I’d really like to see these comments where I’m supposedly being a Nazi apologist or a Nazi sympathizer. I’m pretty sure I’ve not said a single good thing about them, at least not as an ideology (I did object to the notion of jailing literally every member of the Nazi party after the war, which with the hindsight of history I think seems to have worked out okay. And you seem to agree with that with your “have a trial” point).

              The Nazis were terrible. The Soviets were also terrible. And the people caught in between them at the time often had to choose one of those sides, without that hindsight of history to tell them which one would end up being the victors.

              • ExLisper@linux.community
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes, I’m sure there were some people that got caught between Waffen-SS and the Soviets and suffered because of that. This guy was not one of them. He was in Waffen-SS.

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve only been speaking in generalities, I don’t know the specifics of Hunka’s case in particular.

                  People did get conscripted into the Waffen-SS. Apparently not Hunka, based on other comments, but simply “being in the Waffen-SS” doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

                  • Melkath@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Waffen-SS means open weapon carry nazi secret police. After the Nazi secret police got aggressive enough to start open carrying because they had outgrown the need for secrecy thanks to all the nazi sympathizers that bolstered them.

              • someguy3
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m not reading all that after reading through your other comments, but I did catch the what-what-whaaboutism. JFC back to what I said, have a trial. And you’re back to absofuckinglutely terribly or Nazi apologist. I know which I’ve decided. Now go away.

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not how whataboutism works. Whataboutism is an attempt to excuse bad behaviour by pointing out that the “other side” does it too. I’m saying that both sides are bad. It’s literally the opposite of whataboutism.

                  But you didn’t read it, so.

              • Oderus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Solid response but you won’t get much upvotes here because people have made up their minds long time ago. New information won’t dissuade them because they’re already committed to lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks.

                Historians say this is complex but all the non-experts are making this so black and white it’s hard to believe.

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks. Yeah, even when you discount the higher Tankie proportion on many Lemmy instances I find this is a common situation in general. The simple-minded “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing means if I say bad things about Stalin I must be supporting Hitler. Despite the fact that I’ve also said plenty of bad things about Hitler and nothing good about him.

                  Ah well. I’ve never been in this for the Karma, after all.

                  • Oderus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Oh, and don’t forget being called Holocaust Denier or something equally vapid and untrue. Who the fuck is denying that? Literally, no one but here they are because that’s the Russian strategy, accuse, accuse accuse and never let up.

                    Imagine falling for Kremlin propaganda and not even knowing it? These people are morons for believing the Russian government considering it’s well established that they’ve committed war crimes in Ukraine. First rule of propaganda, blame others for what you’re doing. Fox News and the GOP do it all the time and their supporters can’t see the forest from the trees cause they’re just too simple-minded to understand.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Speaking of obfuscation…

        There is of course nuance in party membership. Ur examples are of course Schindler and Albert Goering. My aunt’s father was actually conscripted into the military at 14 during the dying days of the reich.

        But we’re talking here about a dude who joined up with a nazi military division of his own free will when the war was in full healthy swing - a division that explicitly fought against his own people. He chose to join the invading forces. Fuck 'im.

      • foksmash@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re all over this thread defending the Nazi. What’s your deal, guy?

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Can you point to where I’m defending Nazis? I’m all over this thread saying “it’s entirely possible that both sides were really awful and people were forced to choose between those two bad choices.” That’s hardly a defence of Nazis or Naziism. Quite the opposite.

          One of the other responses someone made to my comment suggested that most of those 8.5 million Nazis should have been killed. The utter lack of perspective and nuance, not to mention the irony, is astounding. We happen to actually live in a timeline where those people weren’t killed and we know for a fact that everything went fine. So maybe those people weren’t all raving monsters after all, and applying a pure black-and-white nuance-free filter to the world leads to bad decisions.

          • Melkath@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Tolerance of intolerance is intolerance.

            Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance.

            If a mob of fascists is trying to commit a genocide, the answer is 100% to wipe that fascist mob out of existence.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You realize that we are right now living in the timeline where we didn’t kill all those Nazis. We know, for an absolute fact, what would happen if we didn’t “wipe that fascist mob out of existence.” We got modern-day Germany as a result.

              And you’re still of the opinion that they should have been massacred instead? You think that would have resulted in a better outcome than what we have in the real world today?