Removed by mod
Pal, we had a guy who was an active participant in genocide put in front of Parliament and applauded. We can take a moment to consider why that was a bad idea.
Is it impossible for you to focus on more than one issue at the same time?
Ok Karl
deleted by creator
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.
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
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.
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 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.
I think it would have been okay.
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.
“Name every soldier who fought in WW2.”
“The allies?”
“Everyone.”
“Oh you’re into military history? Name every soldier.”
deleted by creator
This article kind of sucks.
Here is an article that paints a more nuanced picture and doesn’t call every MP an idiot.
Not blaming you for posting, OP. Just wanted to offer a take with more depth than “Nazis bad” Everyone knows Nazis are bad. This situation is more complex than that.
I don’t really think it is. That article you linked is holocaust revisionism and I think you should really rethink how much grey area you think there is in this situation.
I think Lando read the same article I read from the actual historian, but it’s hard to find it now.
I tried to link the article in my comment. I believe it was also linked on Canada earlier today.
I’m aware of the Politico article, I read it earlier. It’s frankly gross.
I’m not arguing that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
I just linked an article stating that this singular Ukranian man fought on a unit that was found to have committed no war crimes.
Apparently I’m having trouble with links. Lol.
He fought for Nazi Germany who murdered 11 million Slavs, 4 million of those being Ukrainians who he supposedly was fighting for. Hunka is a betrayer. A willing participant in genocide.
I swear to you that I believe the Holocaust happened.
I’m trying to say that one man, who was 18 years old, in 1943, living in Ukraine (which was part of the Soviet Union at the time), might have had limited options in what he did for a living.
And if he didn’t want to his people to be a part of the Soviet Union then he could have ended up on a unit that was working against the Soviet Union. I’m not saying that was right or wrong. I’m just saying it’s more complicated than “this guy was a Nazi” and the whole government of Canada is full of idiots.
You should say it was wrong. This man was a willing collaborator with the genocide of his own people, and other peoples as well. It really shouldn’t be hard to say it was wrong.
[edit] I feel I should say that my intention was not to accuse you of holocaust revisionism. But the Politico article is and I suggest you look at it with a more critical eye.
PPS: Nazi apologists admit genocide is bad challenge: impossible.
As opposed to siding with the other side that had just also killed roughly 4 million Ukranians before the war started, and also committed many atrocities against the Ukranian people (which contiued to happen as the Soviets retook Ukraine). I’m not saying that joining the Waffen-SS to fight the Soviets is just (and I’m also making the assumption that no other war crimes were committed, as so far, there is no evidence Hunka was involved in any war crimes) but living in a time where he can’t exactly Google the death counts the Nazis and Soviets, and having experienced the Soviet rigime’s brutality, its not clear cut. Given the information currently available, its entirely possible a lot of his town or family were killed in the Holodomor and he joined believing fewer would be killed under Nazi rule. Given the death counts under Stalin’s rigime, its not a strange thought, esspecially after living through it, and not yet spending much time under Nazi rule. It doesn’t even have to be that he thought the Nazis were less dangerous to be a reasonable choice. For example, this was already late in the war, so if he felt confident that the Allies would win, he could have justified fighting hoping that neither the Soviets nor the Nazis would end the war in control of Ukraine. I’m not saying any of these is the case, but until we have some evidence that it isn’t one of these, its far more grey.
To be clear, I don’t think working with the Nazi army is a good thing, the Nazi rigime was obviously worse, but given the information he would have had access to at the time and the still-unclear background, theres no evidence he agreed with any of the Nazi beleifs or actions (other than fighting the Soviets). Until we find something more substantial, its not clear if he was/is the Nazi (ideologically) he is currently being portrayed as, or just someone who feared continued Soviet genocide of his people. We should not assume he is guilty while there is still room for uncertainty. On the other hand, if more substantial information about his motive comes out, or evidence that he was involved in any of the Division’s war crime’s against the Polish people, than I have no issue with leaving him to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but we should be sure that he was involved in the Nazi attrocities rather than just trying to protect his country from Soviet atrocities.
Fighting on the Axis side wasn’t bad; USSR committed genocide, we had interment camps, etc
The engagement in war crimes and in genocide is bad
This person may have engaged in them and that is bad, the same as celebrating a Vietnam vet isn’t bad but celebrating a Vietnam Vet that raped his way through a village is bad
The attempts to make it black and white are a disservice and shows we’ve forgotten the lessons of WW2 where we punished the Nazis but not the Wehrmarcht
And your further comment down seems that you aren’t able to understand this. There isn’t a good side and bad side; there are good people and bad people. The side they are on is largely based on their birth; considering the USSR’s genocide was against Ukrainians they would be more likely to not take that side
