The British talking about Russia and Ukraine : memes

[-] wwb4itcgas@lemm.ee 33 points 1 week ago

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"?

[-] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

One might worry about the motivations behind a murderer who murders another murderer and what that might mean for the original victim.

[-] xxd@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] wwb4itcgas@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] SoulWager@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 27 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 9 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

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.

https://www.les-crises.fr/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not-the-ussr-beat-hitler/

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

Clearly the US army disagrees with you, but what do they know.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 5 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

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?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Szewek@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[-] Szewek@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

How many people a month were dying because of the Nazis?

I love how you ignore those lives as meaningless.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

Then we might as well ask how many people a months has US led world order killed since WW2 ended.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (27 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] missandry351@lemmings.world 4 points 1 week ago

This. The Russians did all the work and the US and UK come and take the credit

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Because when other countries "stood up" to Hitler it was for moral reasons 🤡

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 week ago

Depends how far you want to keep going back...English talking about Russia and Ukraine like they don't still occupy most of Wales

[-] Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago

Depends how far you want to keep going back ….English talking about Russia and Ukraine like we don’t still occupy all of Cornwall.

[-] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] revv 15 points 1 week ago

Don't forget the Falklands.

[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

Never heard of them. Maybe you mean the Malvinas.

[-] revv 8 points 1 week ago

Quite right you are. So I did.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] Contemporarium@lemm.ee 15 points 1 week ago

They talk shit on every country as if they live in a utopia which is genuinely hilarious

[-] Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago

I want to know who thinks we live in a utopia.

[-] terusgormand8465@lemmings.world 8 points 1 week ago

These situations are not comparable in the slightest.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 week ago

You're right, what the British have done to the Irish is immeasurably worse.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week ago

the french talking about russia and ukraine

[-] fadhl3y@lemmy.one 6 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] damdy@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 week ago

They had just as many conquering bastards, but everyone is happy being Japanese.

you should definitely let the occupied people of Okinawa know that

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] MBM@lemmings.world 5 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] CapriciousDay@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

As it happens you don't actually have to be a social chauvinist for the country in which you reside.

Memes

Rules: