The worst part about this is that it wasn't a one time sort of thing. The forced relocation was enforced until just before the Soviet Union fell. As a note, every other ethnic group that Stalin forced into relocation were allowed to begin returning home in 1956, but not the Crimean Tatars.
Stalin also tried to kill them off via famine in the 1920s.
This is bad, however, there's some hope. From wiki,
Starting in 1967, a few were allowed to return and in 1989 the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union condemned the removal of Crimean Tatars from their motherland as inhumane and lawless, but only a tiny percent were able to return before the full right of return became policy in 1989.
The Russians committed so many genocides to natives all over Eurasia you cant even count them...yet no one today cares. There are whole groups of people basically erased because of them
(reminder that they aren't alone in this. It doesn't excuse them but one has to look at one's own country)
Everyone killed each other in the past and comitted terrible acts but SOME countries really stand out...
Why does one have to qualify their opinion that genocide is bad?
Including Circassian genocide in mid 19th century. Some people in North Caucasus (also in Turkey, which received survivors) still try to keep this memory alive. If Kerch bridge survives, maybe one day it could help link Crimea and Circassia. But how far should we go back in history - what about Genghis Khan? The Mongol empire split Kievan Rus - Ivan Grozni would have argued he was fighting back. Now it's 21st century we need general agreement not to make any empires great again.
Anyone else feel a very distinct narrative being pushed with these last few posts?
I seem to have touched a nerve.
First the Anne Frank graphic novel, now this comment. Fascists really hate the "narrative" of historical truth.
I don't know, historical "truth" is all about focus, editing and which documents, details and context are hidden, lost, forgotten, censored, omitted, overlooked, not even recorded. In the end it is a narrative and can be shaped by bias like a newspaper: you need to read a few different ones to get an idea of what actually happened, unless you lived it and even then it's interesting to see what it looked like to others. What is important is that there is free access to historical documents and information so you can ask questions that were never answered before in textbooks and still get answers instead of an uncomfortable void in some parts.
Okay, but this actually happened and is well documented. The event is not under question.
Yes, this case is pretty clear and the intentions and alternatives are clear too as far as I can tell, it's a classic imperial strategy of homogenisation.
PS: What I was thinking of in the comment above when I wrote that was the Wikipedia article on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and how the Soviets were apparently chummy (not just non-aggression) with the Nazis before being invaded by them (1st order correction to what I used to think: that they hated each other) and there is actually a 2nd order correction to that correction from documents found showing that Stalin tried to form an anti-nazi pact with France and the UK, but it was rejected in favour of appeasement, which puts that in a different light too...everyone comes out of it looking foolish.
this is the longest, most mentally gymnastics holocaust denial I have seen in a long time
Actually, I was talking about the way authoritarians manipulate history by denying people access to information, but you can shoehorn whatever you want, sure, lots of other people seem to have done so too looking at the downvotes, lol. The truth is what you can prove, not reality. There is proof of the Holocaust, but that is what we are aware of. Lots of other things happening at the time, like the Crimean Tatars goes unnoticed until focus moves there.
I was talking about the way authoritarians manipulate history
translated to normal: "I was talking about the way (((they))) manipulate history"
It's true that it was official policy in soviet-colonized spaces to erase the local culture and power structures, replacing it with Russia's, and paper over what happened with self-serving stories as the story of record. It's also true that this is a thing they have in common with every other colonizer; just as the Europeans colonized the shit out of the Americas, Russians colonized the shit out of the Soviet republics (and their own territory).
Yes, the process of colonizing in this fashion involves the deliberate destruction of inconvenient fact- but saying "we can't know the truth" participates in its erasure.
I didn't say we can't know the truth. I said the truth can't be known if you can't ask questions and don't have free access to investigate the dark past. Some dude even called me a holocaust denier 🤡
There's CCP and Kremlin propaganda all over Lemmy, of course people will tell the truth to counter it.
"Narrative" is a funny way of saying "woah I'm an idiot"
Hey you absolute idiot. This is history, not a narrative. Get the f out.
What narrative would that be?
Ah yes, the narrative of, checks notes, "objective and verified facts that happened".
well aren’t you important!
Stalin was a big fan of genocide, especially in Ukraine. He also deported all the Jews to Siberia and created a "Jewish Oblast" in the middle of nowhere, the only place Soviet Jews were allowed to live unless they were extremely useful.
What a colossal bastard. His only benefit was he fought Hitler.
And he was perfectly happy to work with Hitler until Hitler betrayed him with Barbarossa. Colossal bastard doesn't begin to describe what an absolute fuckface he was.
If you would like to become a mod in this community, kindly PM the mod.Relive the Past in Jaw-Dropping Detail!
HistoryPorn is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!
Rules
Pictures of old artifacts and museum pieces should go to History Artifacts
Illustrations and paintings should go to History Drawings
Related Communities: