830
"I live here now"
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
830 points (100.0% liked)
Comics
7303 readers
31 users here now
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple “- Me” would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the ‘Link’ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is completely false. It was seat of Crimean Khanate, vassal of Ottoman Empire, which was also hostile to Poland, Russia AND cossacks. And "deeply intertwined with the Ukrainian economy" was mostly looting, kidnapping, raping and murdering Ruthenian peasants (ancestors of both Ukrainians and local Russians) as part of one of biggest historical slave trades which Russia ended when it conquered that blight of humanity Khanate was.
Your post is deeply ahistorical, disgusting and borders on slavery apologia, and you should be ashamed.
That's even further back. I'm talking about the period when the Russian empire controlled the territory. During that time (+100 years), there was far more economic integration with the Ruthenians than there was with Russia proper. It made more logistical sense, it's the same reason for which Crimea was ceded to Ukraine by the Soviets, Kiev due to its positioning was better suited to administratively control it.
The tsar sought to increase his influence over the region and began the process of russification, to tie the valuable region to Russia proper. The Soviets accelerated this, as they did in most of the other Soviet states.
Also thanks to ml mods to shut down any discussion. Come on, you're better than just censoring comments.
Do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever for the claim that Russiafication was worse under the Soviets than under the tsar? Because if not, the mods are well within their rights to remove your unsupported claims as misinformation.
Sure, here's a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai
The Soviets pursued korenization initially, which actually revived efforts towards Ukrainization. But this was later stopped and reversed to pursue a single Soviet identity with the Russian language. Ukrainian culture was suppressed and even Ukrainian membership of the communist party declined sharply. Russification intensified under Khrushchev and later Brezhnev.
That's an entire book, about an entirely different topic, written by the British ambassador working in the last few years of the USSR.
Do you at least have a page number where he compares Ukraine during the USSR compared to Tsarist Russia? It is specifically the claim that Donbass was was more heavily suppressed than in Tsarist Russia that I'm disputing.
Page 151 has what you're looking for:
You trust an anti-communist british ambassador at their word?
I trust someone who was actually there more than a random user on the internet, yes. If you have a source that shows the opposite, feel free to share.
You're not going to find many books to the effect of, "see how hegemonic we aren't", so you mainly need to look at how the ussr treated republics within it, and especially preserved national minorities.
The USSR academy of sciences published works in many languages, same for the state publishing houses.
There are also some longer works on the languages of the USSR, because there was such a diversity of them and the constitution mandated their protection, but I haven't read them.
Compare with the US (wiped out every indigenous language), or the UK (tried to do the same for Irish and Welsh). It's always projection with these anticommunist westerner historians.
You can see the diversity here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Soviet_Union
@dessalines @ChairmanMeow Why won't those ungrateful Ukrainians just surrender to Putin's kindly embrace?
Eastern Ukrainians weren't grateful to be bombed by NATO-funded banderites for several years in the donbass, nor were most Ukrainians glad to have their government overthrown in a US-backed coup in 2014.
@dessalines And yet they still fight Putin. Go figure.
No they don't lmao. You're literally crying about Russia supporting Donbas secession.
They're the ones resisting Ukraine, they've been doing it since 2014.
Surrender? The people of donbass already voted to secede before the raf got involved directly. They don't want to be a part of Ukraine.
@mathemachristian Also: Putin was popularly elected.
I dont get your point.
Whenever Russia comes up these comments sections devolve into putting the lib in madlibs.
Just nonsensical word salad from people trying to remember what looked like a zinger in another comment section but not knowing when to say it because they didn't know shit then and they sure didn't bother to learn, so they don't know shit now either.
madlibs is such a good way of phrasing it, they learn some phrases with a set of conditions for when to use it like and then simply insert keywords. Like an akinator of epic clapbacks.
To be fair, it’s a winning strategy on Reddit and almost every other social media platform in the imperial core.
Perhaps also read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification then, which is linked on that page. It explains how the Soviets:
These were all policies aimed at "unifying" the various cultures in the Soviet Union and strengthening control.
Early Soviet Union is as you described, promoting various cultures and languages. Lenin saw that as a way to gain favour with the local populations. Later leaders however went down a different path.
I wonder if you'd apply the same standard in reverse. If a Chinese ambassador says something about the US, should I just take them at their word with no further evidence, until someone can prove that their claim is wrong?
If said Chinese ambassador wrote a book that was also sourced (like this British ambassador's book is in a fair few places), their claims aren't disputed by any factual evidence and is generally corroborated by historians, I'd be inclined to believe them yes.
I wouldn't expect said ambassador to have a scientific study backing up every single sentence in the book. If he's writing about his experiences, that can be a valuable perspective on things. I wouldn't treat it as gospel necessarily but I can still apply critical thinking to ascertain whether or not they're a credible source.
Ok, point at those fair few (lmao) places. That was the original question.
Spare us the hot dogging, show us verifiable facts or shut up.
So the British ambassador asserts that the Soviets did the same thing as the Tsars but it was "more brutal." What, specifically, does "more brutal" mean here? As in, more people affected? What were the numbers? Where did he get those? Am I just expected to take his word for it?
This is kind of interesting considering that you've claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
Where does this information come from? Were there polls on whether Russians saw this as discrimination? Or is it anecdotal/vibes based, something that the British ambassador simply assumes the Russians must have felt?
I claimed the russification process was more severe, not the executions. It's well known that as a part of destalinization the executions largely stopped. That doesn't mean the Union stopped promoting russification.
If you have a source that claims the opposite, feel free to share it.
You're making the claims, you get the source. It's really not that hard.
You don't have a source? It's ok. Don't make claims, only repeat things you checked the source for.
No investigation, no right to speak.
I've already provided a source.
You provided a second claim from somebody else. That's not a source. Sources include verifiable facts.
If you actually bothered to read the book at least a little bit, you'd have read he actually sources a fair bit.
He's also providing an eyewitness account from his time there. I'm not sure how much more primary you want to get.
If you had actually bothered to link the specific instances where he sources those claims, we would have read them.
But you didn't, because you probably didn't read a book you want us to go on a wild goose chase for. Eyewitness accounts from anglos are only good enough to wipe your ass with and even then there's better alternatives.
No facts then? Cool, I thought so.
That's... A claim, not a source. A printed claim is still a claim ffs.
The soviets did not expand russification, it was the opposite. They preserved and made official tons of minority languages (yiddish comes to mind), even establishing publishing houses in these languages. In addition to the SSRs that preserved the national identities and cultures of the given republics, the soviets instituted protections for minorities within these ssrs.
Initially this is absolutely true! Under Lenin particularly this was very much promoted "indiginenisation" iirc it's best translated as in English. But particularly under Khrushchev and later Breznhnev this very much changed, focusing on the single Soviet identity.
They didn't really prosecute these minorities mind, just very much promoted the Soviet culture and Russian language in a large variety of ways.
Not two comments ago you were saying the soviets accelerated the Tsarist policies of forced russification. Either you know fuck all about Tsarist Russia and it's pogroms (and thus you're doing genocide apologia) or you don't know shit about the Soviet Union. Either way you should stop commenting on it and replying like you're aware of everything and that's just the thing you meant.
Unless, of course, disinfo is the point.
Tsarist Russia started with the russification process. The Soviets initially under Lenin reversed course, but this later changed under Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. They accelerated the process. None of this is contradictory to what I've said.
The pogroms in tsarist Russia are horrible acts of genocide, but they were fairly simply anti-Jewish in nature. They were not a part of the russification process and should be considered separate. Hence when I compare the russification between tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, I'm obviously not taking any pogroms into consideration. It's horrible, but unrelated to the subject at hand.
You dont get to post vibes base ahistoric nonsense (like you again did) then cry about mods "censoring" you.