You must log in or # to comment.
The other day I was thinking about tensions that exist in part because of British-drawn borders. Israel-Palestina, India-Pakistan. Can’t believe I forgot NI.
If Northern Ireland decided to reunite with the rest of Ireland it would solve so many problems… good luck trying to convince the Northern Irish of that.
As it happens you don’t actually have to be a social chauvinist for the country in which you reside.
The ENGLISH are the occupiers. Scotland and Wales are also occupied.
These situations are not comparable in the slightest.
You’re right, what the British have done to the Irish is immeasurably worse.
It’s a really complicated situation as far as my understanding goes (I’m British for context). I believe most British would support Irish unification, at least from the people I speak to. But still the majority (or close to) would vote to remain in the UK. Plus it’ll be outrageously expensive a transition for Ireland. I don’t know why this is and would like to know.
It’s not an easy situation, and in my own personal opinion we should be uniting as friends, allies and equals.
As a UK person, I look at Japan as a nation very similar to ours, they’ve successfully united 4 islands (plus many small) much larger than the UK and I’d love to understand how it seems so easy. They had just as many conquering bastards, but everyone is happy being Japanese.
They had just as many conquering bastards, but everyone is happy being Japanese.
you should definitely let the occupied people of Okinawa know that
Do they not want do be Japanese? I have no idea.
No they do not, and Japanese along with Americans continuously commit atrocities against them and poison their water with the outflow from the US military base.
Sorry, I was thinking of Hokkaido although I think both options could educate me. My understanding is that Hokkaido is the crazy northerners. Again apologies for misunderstanding you, I’m terrible at non English words.
Basically, the Ryukyu Islands have been historically an independent with their own distinct culture, and ties to China. They were annexed by Japan in 1879 during the Meiji Restoration, becoming Okinawa Prefecture. This annexation erased their sovereignty and imposed Japanese assimilation policies that suppressed indigenous language and traditions.
After WW2, Okinawa was placed under US military occupation due to its strategic Pacific location, hosting extensive U.S. bases. Today, Okinawa remains burdened with 70% of US military facilities in Japan, linked to environmental damage, accidents, and crimes by personnel.
The modern Ryukyu independence movement emerged from this history of subjugation. Okinawans want to restore their language, traditions, and identity suppressed by Japan. They want to evict US bases from their land, and to become independent from Japan.
That’s a very good summary. Do Okinawans feel closer to other Pacific island nations that to Japan? Also, Pacific islanders are natural rugby players, does Japan get all their players from there? I could look this up, but it feels better to asm questions from someone who’s knowledgeable. And I love rugby.
I read back my comment and realised I didn’t acknowledge you effort enough. Thank you a lot for putting in the time to answer so thoroughly and it means a lot to me.
Inspirational, never let “not being able to tell different words apart” stop anyone from having strong opinions about foreign politics
/s
Pretty sure I made it clear that my knowledge was limited and was very open to other opinions. Also admitted I was mistaken. Not sure what more you want. Learning new things is great and setting a foundation of what you think you know is useful to learning.
Also…I can’t figure out how to edit on this app…this seems like anti UK bot posting. Which there is a lot of. Putin is really angry with us apparently.
The whole planet is angry at your state if you didn’t notice
I did, it does confuse me a little. As a colonial power UK gets all the hate. France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany etc get let off. Even though UK released it’s colonies in legal and peaceful ways on the whole.
Even though UK released it’s colonies in legal and peaceful ways on the whole.
Islas Malvinas
France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany etc get let off.
Don’t worry, they are also remembered
So I was going to fact check myself before I responded. But I thought it’d be more interesting to be wrong on what I think I know.
Faulkands were never occupied by Argentina. They were claimed for France and then removed by the British. It’s been British ever since and I think the few occupants want to remain British.
Depends how far you want to keep going back…English talking about Russia and Ukraine like they don’t still occupy most of Wales
Depends how far you want to keep going back ….English talking about Russia and Ukraine like we don’t still occupy all of Cornwall.
Depends how far you want to keep going back ….Wessex dudes talking about Russia and Ukraine like we don’t still occupy all of Mercia.
Depends how far you want go back, Saruman talking about Minis Tirith, when we still don’t occupy all of Rohan.
They talk shit on every country as if they live in a utopia which is genuinely hilarious
I want to know who thinks we live in a utopia.
I love this logic.
If we follow it, then nobody should have stood up to Hitler, because it would mean allying with the racist US and imperial Britain.
Because when other countries “stood up” to Hitler it was for moral reasons 🤡
LMFAO this is what happens when you get “education” under a western regime. The racist US and imperial Britain were completely and utterly irrelevant to defeating Hitler. In fact, what they actually accomplished was to ensure that the horrors of capitalism would continue to this day. With the US, it would have been USSR that liberated all of Europe from both the nazis and capitalist oppression.
Don’t take my word for it though. Here’s what a book produced by US military has to say on the subject.
This. The Russians did all the work and the US and UK come and take the credit
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn’t contribute to the war effort at all.
It’s likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it’s estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it’s more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
LOL this guy again
It’s obvious to anyone who can do basic math that what the US and UK did was a pinprick to German army and industry. You simply have to look at the numbers of troops lost and it becomes very clear who was fighting this war. After many decades of propaganda westerners convinced themselves they were relevant in it.
The Axis combined conscripted approximately 40 million men, whereas the Soviet Union conscripted approximately 34.5 million men. Without the Allies they would not have won just looking at the numbers.
The US conscripted 16 million, the British Commonwealth approximately 11 million. That’s a combined 27 million, which isn’t exactly insignificant compared to the USSRs 34.5 million (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342260/wwii-mobilization-by-country/).
The Soviets were forced to mobilize that many as they were essentially fighting an existential war at that time. They also suffered the brunt of the casualties, in no small part due to a lack of equipment.
Without the Allies, the USSR would have likely lost. Even Stalin knew and said as much. The US entry shortened the war but they certainly didn’t “win the war for the rest of the Allies” or anything. But to minimize the contribution as a “pinprick” is ridiculous and not supported by historians east nor west.
Clearly the US army disagrees with you, but what do they know.
The US army says that lend-lease and the invasion of Europe shortened the war. It does not say that the Soviets would have won without the Allies being in the war. Even your source says that the lend-lease and the invasion, even if not the deciding factor, were “a great help”.
Maybe read your sources a little better?
The source very clearly states that western effort shortened the war, but did not fundamentally change the dynamic of the war. Maybe work on your own reading comprehension?
How many people a month were dying because of the Nazis?
I love how you ignore those lives as meaningless.
Then we might as well ask how many people a months has US led world order killed since WW2 ended.
You’re the one saying we shouldn’t take any actions unless they are morally blameless.
I’ll be the first to say the US should end its wars. What I don’t understand how not using the Dems to get rid of Trump improves the situation.
Nah that’s not what I was saying at all. It’s just a hamfisted straw man you’re using. What I was actually saying is that not only would’ve USSR defeated the nazis on their own, what the west accomplished was a net negative for the world. Had US not gotten itself involved, then Europe would’ve almost certainly have become communist. There wouldn’t have been wars in Vietnam and Korea, Afghanistan, and many other horrors the empire continues to enact, and we wouldn’t be living in capitalist hell in the west today.
Sorry. I thought we were dealing with getting stuff done now.
I didn’t realize you wanted to talk about alternate history.
My mistake.
No, we are not dealing with alternative history. We are dealing with the history of what the west proceeded to do after the war ended. If you’re going to talk about how many people died then you have to include all the people that the west brutally massacred during the Cold War and continues to massacre today. Because your claim is that the world order that arose out of US participating in the war was a net positive. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to help you understand this.
You’re the one saying we should not do anything unless it is morally blameless.
I know the US war on terror is immoral. What I don’t understand is why you think letting things get worse is a good idea.
cough non agression pact cough
Annnd which one of these is viewed as “good”?
None of them. But you seem kinda hellbent on specialising the one that explicitly carved up several countries that were about to be invaded a literal week before the invasions started.
Annnd which one of these is viewed as “good”?
None of them are viewed as much of anything because nobody ever brings them up. Yet if someone has the gall to claim that the Soviets fought (not even beat) the Nazis, fuckers like you come in to harp on about muh Muhluhtov-Ribbenslop pact.
I think your ignorance is rather showing here. “Appeasement” has literally become a filthy word politically because of those exact pacts. Except for Italy, which ended up an axis power in and of itself so I’m not quite sure wtf you think putting that in accomplished.
You are getting very weirdly het up about people acknowledging the fact that pact occurred. The USSR literally did change sides mid-war. This is fact. That doesn’t negate their part in ending the war (there is literally a saying about british intelligence, US hardware and russian blood) but to act like they were the sole saviours of europe is just as much bullshit as the americans claiming the same
Okay. Even if this is correct, then we have: If the UK and the US had not stood up to Hitler, we would have a Stalinist regime spreading across all, not half of the continent. Nice.
Also, a reminder: The Soviets first collaborated with Hitler, attacking Poland together in 1939. They intensified rather than stopped the colonial practices of the Russian Empire.
Yeah, communism spreading across the world would actually be nice. As a reminder, the Four-Power Pact was a 1933 agreement between Britain, France, Italy, and Germany.
Munich Agreement (September 1938): The British, French, and Italy agreed to concede the Sudetenland to Germany in exchange for a pledge of peace. WWII began one year later, when Germany invaded Poland.
The Pilsudski Pact (1934): The German–Polish declaration of non-aggression normalised relations and the parties agreed to forgo armed conflict for a period of 10 years. Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
German-French Non-Aggression Pact (December 1938): A treaty between Germany and France, ensuring mutual non-aggression and peaceful relations. Germany invaded France in 1940.
German-Lithuanian Non-Aggression Pact (March 1939): This ultimatum issued by Germany demanded Lithuania return the Klaipėda Region (Memel) which it lost in WWI in exchange for a non-aggression pact. Germany occupied Lithuania in 1941.
Denmark Non-Aggression Pact (May 1939): An agreement between Germany and Denmark, ensuring non-aggression and peaceful coexistence. Germany invaded Denmark in 1940.
German-Estonian Non-Aggression Pact (June 1939): Germany occupied Estonia in 1941.
German-Latvian Non-Aggression Pact (June 1939): Germany occupied Latvia in 1941.
USSR Non-Aggression Pact (August 1939): Known as the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, this was a non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, also including secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. Germany invaded the USSR in 1941.
Feel free to continue embarrassing yourself.
Yeah, the “secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe” are a tiny, tiny detail. The UK and France decided to declare war on Germany because it was attacking independent countries. The USSR decided to join Germany in the war efforts, as long as they could. They also made programs of ethnic cleansing, mass incarceration and mass murder parallel to the Nazi ones. (They themselves admitted they were basically the same thing, claiming for years that the Katyn massacre was done by the Germans and not the Soviets). The power in the Soviet Union was concentrated in the hands of a very few people at the highest ranks of the Communist Party. Any independent self-organization, including independent workers’ unions, was forbidden. Explain to me: What was so wonderful in all of that?
The UK and France decided to declare war on Germany because it was attacking independent countries.
🤣🤣🤣
The USSR decided to join Germany in the war efforts, as long as they could.
🤡
Can’t wait for the next banger.
The power in the Soviet Union was concentrated in the hands of a very few people at the highest ranks of the Communist Party. Any independent self-organization, including independent workers’ unions, was forbidden. Explain to me: What was so wonderful in all of that?
Having actually grown up in USSR, this is hands down the dumbest shit I’ve read on this site today.
Well, I’ve also grown up in the former Eastern Bloc. So 1:1. Maybe you were part of the privileged group profiting from the Soviet imperialism? ;)
Also: Do you deny the Gulag, the oppression of all opposition, including any forms of self-organization, the Holodomor genocide, and the ethnic cleansing, e.g., of the Crimean Tatars?
ah yes the PriVileGed GrOup ProFiTing FroM the SovIeT ImepriaLism seems to have been majority of the population in USSR 🤡
Also: Do you deny the Gulag, the oppression of all opposition, including any forms of self-organization, the Holodomor genocide, and the ethnic cleansing, e.g., of the Crimean Tatars?
Of course I deny your fascist propaganda. Holodomor genocide narrative was literally created by fascist and you’ve just exposed yourself by regurgitating it.
-
Don’t forget the Falklands.
Never heard of them. Maybe you mean the Malvinas.
Quite right you are. So I did.
The Falklands are probably the only recent historical example of colonization that wasn’t immoral, but England should probably give them to Argentina anyway because fuck England.
Yeah fuck all the people on the island who want to remain part of the UK, and voted to remain. Let’s give the island to Argentina because this guy doesn’t like England.
See? You get it, fuck England
More of a British thing really. We dragged them all down with us.
the french talking about russia and ukraine
Ah yes. Whataboutism. Suppose a robber acts in defense of a person about to be robbed. That may or may not make them a hypocrite, but it certainly doesn’t make them wrong.
Or would you say it would somehow be more right for the robber to stand back and allow the robbery “because they’re in no position to point fingers”?
One might worry about the motivations behind a murderer who murders another murderer and what that might mean for the original victim.
It’s you that is whatabouting. We could (Read:should) have defended them without robbing their land.
Further to that; it doesn’t excuse the fact that we have never returned the land to them. Bit of a process appreciated, but it would have made the incredibly difficult and moronic brexit process a bit easier.
Name a nation that hasn’t expanded or died out.
It’s countries doing genocide that bothers me.
I’m sorry, but I have literally no idea what you’re talking about. Who’s robbing what land? Are we talking about Ukraine or Ireland?
Because I’m here talking about Ukraine and the UK.
Ukraine, Ireland, Palestine…
This might surprise you, but that didn’t help clearing up anything. If you have an argument to make, make an argument. That way I can either agree with you or retort.
No, I don’t consider listing countries or regions an argument. Denmark, Belgium, French Polynesia. Now you might wonder where I’m going with that, but I’m not going to tell you. I’ll just expect you to read my mind. That’s communication, you see.
I know. I was being a cock. I thought you’d mentioned Ireland, fuck knows how. My comments are null, void, and pointless.
No worries, I wouldn’t dream of holding it against you; if anything, you have my respect for owning up to making a simple mistake, which happens to everybody sooner or later - me very much included. Kudos!
Ive commented elsewhere in the past that the Fediverse is a much more pleasant place, and I’d like to maintain that. Thank you for being pleasant back. Have a great weekend.
If anything it would be more a ‘tu quoque’ fallacy than whataboutism, because the latter tries to shift the attention to an unrelated topic, whereas here it is occupying land both times.
It certainly weakens the criticism, because the robber in your example might do the right thing, but if they really opposed robbing, surely they wouldn’t do it themselves? As you said, it makes them a hypocrite, and makes you question their motive for measuring two cases with a different yardstick.
OOP smells like a pro-putin propaganda account. Someone else doing something bad doesn’t make your own acts of murder any more justifiable, especially when you’re murdering someone completely different than the wrongdoer.
Sure, but to my mind the question is: How does robber #2 pointing out that robber #1 is himself a robber excuse the actions of robber #2?
Removed by mod
