Who should resign in Canada over the Waffen SS standing ovation?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Rota (and I'm glad he has) and Freeland, who has a legitimately disturbing background in this issue area, both personally and professionally. I can't believe she hasn't gotten more scrutiny on this before; at any time before February of last year it would have been an easy layup for Tory or Dipper attacks on the government.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You don't have to defend literally everything someone from your country does, Frank, even if it's Americans who are criticizing the person.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Whataboutism and counteraccusations are a form of defense.

I don't think anyone thinks the Canadian government's commitment to democracy in the here and now is dubious. This is an issue of historical memory. Freeland's track record of lying about her Nazi grandpa is absolutely relevant on that level.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Whataboutism and counteraccusations are a form of defense.

I don't think anyone thinks the Canadian government's commitment to democracy in the here and now is dubious. This is an issue of historical memory. Freeland's track record of lying about her Nazi grandpa is absolutely relevant on that level.

How is this 'whataboutism' as opposed to a similar precedent? What counteraccusations are you referring to?

The issue of historical memory is what this is about for me, and the historical memory is:
1.Being greatly oversimplified to fit into some stupid binary.
2.Being whitewashed with a bust to the Nazi Von Braun.

It's whataboutism because nobody in this thread has defended Wernher von Braun.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Whataboutism and counteraccusations are a form of defense.

I don't think anyone thinks the Canadian government's commitment to democracy in the here and now is dubious. This is an issue of historical memory. Freeland's track record of lying about her Nazi grandpa is absolutely relevant on that level.

How is this 'whataboutism' as opposed to a similar precedent? What counteraccusations are you referring to?

The issue of historical memory is what this is about for me, and the historical memory is:
1.Being greatly oversimplified to fit into some stupid binary.
2.Being whitewashed with a bust to the Nazi Von Braun.

It's whataboutism because nobody in this thread has defended Wernher von Braun.

But, there is still a bust to him outside of the NASA Space Center, and if you're going to grandstand about this guy being given a standing ovation, maybe you should do something about that bust.

If you don't have a problem with the bust, while not an implicit defence of Von Braun, it certainly shows the 'concern' here is nothing but insincere and/or cynical grandstanding, which is very common in politics.

What in the world has anyone in this thread, except Tim just now, said or done to make you think we don't have a problem with it? You've said quite a bit to make me think you don't have a problem with Yaroslav Hunka or Michael Chomiak.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Whataboutism and counteraccusations are a form of defense.

I don't think anyone thinks the Canadian government's commitment to democracy in the here and now is dubious. This is an issue of historical memory. Freeland's track record of lying about her Nazi grandpa is absolutely relevant on that level.

How is this 'whataboutism' as opposed to a similar precedent? What counteraccusations are you referring to?

The issue of historical memory is what this is about for me, and the historical memory is:
1.Being greatly oversimplified to fit into some stupid binary.
2.Being whitewashed with a bust to the Nazi Von Braun.

It's whataboutism because nobody in this thread has defended Wernher von Braun.

But, there is still a bust to him outside of the NASA Space Center, and if you're going to grandstand about this guy being given a standing ovation, maybe you should do something about that bust.

If you don't have a problem with the bust, while not an implicit defence of Von Braun, it certainly shows the 'concern' here is nothing but insincere and/or cynical grandstanding, which is very common in politics.

What in the world has anyone in this thread, except Tim just now, said or done to make you think we don't have a problem with it? You've said quite a bit to make me think you don't have a problem with Yaroslav Hunka or Michael Chomiak.

It isn't clear what Hunka did or did not do, which I have said here. If he killed Poles, he's a horrible person.

Chomiak was a horrible person, I don't believe in guilt by association in regards to Chrystia Freeland. I have to assume that Freeland lied about what her grandfather did knowing that the comments here are the sort of simplistic grandstanding she'd have to face.

I think it's fair to argue that if people have a problem with the bust of Von Braun that there should be at least one thread on this board on it. I'm not aware of a single thread. I think it's fair to believe that either people don't care about it or don't have a problem with it.

Or possibly we didn't know about it, because it's not widely discussed in the US, which is a historical memory problem in itself and no mistake. Did that occur to you?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Doesn't that seem a little odd to you if people are as anti Nazi as they are now claiming to be?

The most charitable way to read this sentence is as more knee-jerk jingoism about anyone from the US criticizing anyone from Canada for any reason. I'm not going to get into what the less charitable ways are.

In any case, Hunka might well be morally worse now than he was eighty years ago. Being an unrepentant SS veteran just because you yourself didn't do any Holocaust is itself disqualifying. I can't believe I have to spell this out.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Doesn't that seem a little odd to you if people are as anti Nazi as they are now claiming to be?

The most charitable way to read this sentence is as more knee-jerk jingoism about anyone from the US criticizing anyone from Canada for any reason. I'm not going to get into what the less charitable ways are.

In any case, Hunka might well be morally worse now than he was eighty years ago. Being an unrepentant SS veteran just because you yourself didn't do any Holocaust is itself disqualifying. I can't believe I have to spell this out.

1.It was meant as a comment that the reason people here are now grandstanding about Nazis is primarily due to partisan politics and a dislike of the Liberals/Trudeau.

2.The allies themselves drew a distinction between SS on the Western Front and non German SS on the Eastern Front:

An interesting and ironic part of the Yalta settlement in 1945 was that citizens of pre-war Eastern European countries who served in ethnic SS regiments fighting against the Soviets - the Western Ukrainians of the SS Division "Galizia" such as this fellow, plus their counterparts in two Belarussian SS Divisions, two Latvian SS Divisions and an Estonian SS Division - were exempted by the Western Allies of being members of a criminal organization the way other Waffen-SS soldiers were and were not held accountable for crimes committed as part of their service. Rather, they were deemed "involuntary" participants in these groups (even if they (were allegedly) volunteers like the man in question) and given the ability to seek asylum in Western countries after the war without the threat of deportation back to the Soviet Union or other Communist-ruled Eastern European countries.

In an even odder twist, several hundred former Latvian and Estonian Waffen-SS men were employed as guards at Nuremberg during the 1945-47 war crimes trials there, under US supervision wearing special black-and-blue uniforms. These men often accompanied convicted Nazi war criminals to the gallows or transfer to prison for long sentences.

It'd disappointing that I have to point this out but we certainly seem to be at the point where many people can only think with simple binaries.

Read my post again. I'm concerned about the Hunka of 2023, not the Hunka of 1945 who might or might not have individually done much wrong.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't understand.

It would be even worse if you did.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There were unaligned Ukrainian partisans, you realize.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There were unaligned Ukrainian partisans, your realize.

Sure.

That doesn't make Ukrainians fighting Soviets in World War II in defence of Ukraine clearly wrong, just as it doesn't make Finns fighting Soviets in World War II in defence of Finland clearly wrong. Stalin was as evil as Hitler and, less we forget, was an ally of Hitler from 1939-1941.

"So between 1939 and 1941, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are allies. And Stalin actually provides very substantial support to Nazi Germany. So when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941, this time it was Stalin who is taken by surprise."

At best, you are engaging in the Historian's fallacy.

It might be time for you to consider that I know all this already and nevertheless disagree with you on the appropriateness of giving standing ovations to SS veterans and lying about Grandpa's Nazi past, Frank.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fog has cleared. Hunka can see the Waffen-SS clearly now and is still proud of his time with them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There were unaligned Ukrainian partisans, your realize.

Sure.

That doesn't make Ukrainians fighting Soviets in World War II in defence of Ukraine clearly wrong, just as it doesn't make Finns fighting Soviets in World War II in defence of Finland clearly wrong. Stalin was as evil as Hitler and, less we forget, was an ally of Hitler from 1939-1941.

"So between 1939 and 1941, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are allies. And Stalin actually provides very substantial support to Nazi Germany. So when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941, this time it was Stalin who is taken by surprise."

At best, you are engaging in the Historian's fallacy.

Ukraine was under attack by the Nazi war machine intent on dismantling Ukrainian statehood and turning the Ukrainian population into a permanent slave class. I don't think they were defending Ukraine at all.

Yes, a tough position for anybody there, since Stalin had already done that and was intent on maintaining it. But, it's probably impossible to know what this guy believed at the time. It's called 'the fog of war' for a reason.

Well he voluntarily joined a Waffen-SS regiment, so my inclination is not to be charitable.

Yes, and as I said before, my inclination is to have the view 'there but for the grace of God go I.'

There have been other situations in history just as bad for groups of people, but it can't get worse than Stalin and Hitler.

And I've expressed this view on other things elsewhere at times. This has nothing to do with defending any Canadian from me, just to defend against simplistic binaries from people who either aren't aware of the history (especially when they believe they are) or who have simplified the history.

I feel like I know the history pretty well, and I feel pretty comfortable condemning the SS.

So, you are aware, as I've posted here, the Allies themselves didn't condemn non Germans who were in the SS in parts of Eastern Europe?

Unit 731 got off scot-free too but I sure wouldn't want Congress doing a standing ovation for them!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Stop embarrassing yourself by attempting to defend honoring literal Nazis, good lord. We aren't talking about some poor German conscript here, the guy willingly chose to join the SS.

Stop embarrassing yourself by expressing ignorant simple binaries. Again, I've explained the complicated situation, if you feel the need to feel morally superior, go ahead, but you're not.

Not embarrassed at all actually, but thank you for your concern.

I am, in fact, morally superior to SS grandpa here, and I say that without having any high opinion of my own morality. I have never raped or murdered civilians in Eastern Europe nor sent Jews away to be mass-murdered in the Holocaust, so I feel perfectly comfortable in that assertion. No amount of faux-intellectual rambling is going to change the fact that this guy willingly chose to join the SS, and that the SS is responsible for disgustingly immoral actions.

Read the whole thread before commenting, I have nothing to add. It isn't known for certain what Hunka did and there is no claim that he participated in the Holocaust.

We are also going down a dark road when rejecting binary thinking is called 'faux intellectual rambling.'

Whether I'm being faux intellectual or not does not excuse mindless binaries.

Idiocracy here we come...

"Dude. What if, like...there was no difference between good things and bad things, maaaan?"

Seriously, is condemning Stalin going to be your version of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem routine? Is that what you want? Because I'm happy to condemn Stalin for Katyn, the destruction of Polish and Galician intellectual and religious life, the mass rapes in 1945, etc. etc. etc.--there's enough there to fill history books, and it has!--but somehow I don't feel like that's really the point you're trying to make here.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Stop embarrassing yourself by attempting to defend honoring literal Nazis, good lord. We aren't talking about some poor German conscript here, the guy willingly chose to join the SS.

Stop embarrassing yourself by expressing ignorant simple binaries. Again, I've explained the complicated situation, if you feel the need to feel morally superior, go ahead, but you're not.

Not embarrassed at all actually, but thank you for your concern.

I am, in fact, morally superior to SS grandpa here, and I say that without having any high opinion of my own morality. I have never raped or murdered civilians in Eastern Europe nor sent Jews away to be mass-murdered in the Holocaust, so I feel perfectly comfortable in that assertion. No amount of faux-intellectual rambling is going to change the fact that this guy willingly chose to join the SS, and that the SS is responsible for disgustingly immoral actions.

Read the whole thread before commenting, I have nothing to add. It isn't known for certain what Hunka did and there is no claim that he participated in the Holocaust.

We are also going down a dark road when rejecting binary thinking is called 'faux intellectual rambling.'

Whether I'm being faux intellectual or not does not excuse mindless binaries.

Idiocracy here we come...

"Dude. What if, like...there was no difference between good things and bad things, maaaan?"

Seriously, is condemning Stalin going to be your version of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem routine? Is that what you want? Because I'm happy to condemn Stalin for Katyn, the destruction of Polish and Galician intellectual and religious life, the mass rapes in 1945, etc. etc. etc.--there's enough there to fill history books, and it has!--but somehow I don't feel like that's really the point you're trying to make here.

Are you arguing that Stalin was a 'good thing'?

Read the post you're quoting again. You may find an answer to this question!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Stop embarrassing yourself by attempting to defend honoring literal Nazis, good lord. We aren't talking about some poor German conscript here, the guy willingly chose to join the SS.

Stop embarrassing yourself by expressing ignorant simple binaries. Again, I've explained the complicated situation, if you feel the need to feel morally superior, go ahead, but you're not.

Not embarrassed at all actually, but thank you for your concern.

I am, in fact, morally superior to SS grandpa here, and I say that without having any high opinion of my own morality. I have never raped or murdered civilians in Eastern Europe nor sent Jews away to be mass-murdered in the Holocaust, so I feel perfectly comfortable in that assertion. No amount of faux-intellectual rambling is going to change the fact that this guy willingly chose to join the SS, and that the SS is responsible for disgustingly immoral actions.

Read the whole thread before commenting, I have nothing to add. It isn't known for certain what Hunka did and there is no claim that he participated in the Holocaust.

We are also going down a dark road when rejecting binary thinking is called 'faux intellectual rambling.'

Whether I'm being faux intellectual or not does not excuse mindless binaries.

Idiocracy here we come...

"Dude. What if, like...there was no difference between good things and bad things, maaaan?"

Seriously, is condemning Stalin going to be your version of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem routine? Is that what you want? Because I'm happy to condemn Stalin for Katyn, the destruction of Polish and Galician intellectual and religious life, the mass rapes in 1945, etc. etc. etc.--there's enough there to fill history books, and it has!--but somehow I don't feel like that's really the point you're trying to make here.

Are you arguing that Stalin was a 'good thing'?

Read the post you're quoting again. You may find an answer to this question!

This is what you wrote: "Dude. What if, like...there was no difference between good things and bad things"

What is the 'good thing' here (other than possibly Stalin)?

Because that is the point I've been making all along: to a person in those parts of Eastern Europe at that time (and Finland) Stalin was just as evil as Hitler.

The "good thing" is "not being a Waffen-SS veteran, or, if you are a Waffen-SS veteran, at least not being a completely unrepentant one." I'm starting to doubt that you're actually this dense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Keep the good name of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones out of this, please.

I don't think it's blind condemnation to say that this guy perhaps has not led the sort of life that entitles one to a standing ovation from the parliament of a major developed democracy. Evidently you disagree. I'll be taking this into account when interacting with you in the future.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I repudiate the Courage the Cowardly Wumao recommendations I've been getting in this thread, by the way. I knew what he's about when it comes to recommending posts on this story and I want no part of it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Keep the good name of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones out of this, please.

I don't think it's blind condemnation to say that this guy perhaps has not led the sort of life that entitles one to a standing ovation from the parliament of a major developed democracy. Evidently you disagree. I'll be taking this into account when interacting with you in the future.

I specifically wrote: I agree he doesn't deserve praise, but the only people who should be condemned for the choices made in those Eastern European nations during World War II are those who seeked to personally profit or to murder other innocents. For people in those nations (and in Finland) both the Nazis and the Soviets were evil.

Are you now at such a stage of binary thinking that you believe that anybody who doesn't condemn this man must believe that he was entitled to a standing ovation from the Parliament of a major developed democracy?

Him getting a standing ovation from the parliament of a major developed democracy is the news story we are discussing, you see.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I find it strange that you're more concerned with arguing with me about this, than with the people here who still whitewash the history of the Nazi Pope (AKA Hitler's Pope) when that discussion come up a while back.

This is a reasonable point. The short explanation here is that I don't feel as free to get into the trenches on this stuff on boards I moderate. If Pius XII had come up on some other board I'd have been much more concerned with arguing with the people who were relativizing his actions.

For the rest, I'll just say that you're making hyperspecific distinctions that I find sophistic and unhelpful, and that really all of us know what we're discussing and what's at stake when we discuss it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I repudiate the Courage the Cowardly Wumao recommendations I've been getting in this thread, by the way. I know what he's about when it comes to recommending posts on this story and I want no part of it.

This post is highly amusing and validates my strategy; if I can get under your skin simply by liking posts, then you'd better believe I'm going to continue. You can ban me for liking the "wrong" posts, but then you'd be so deep into censorship it's beyond China's.

It's not that you're getting under my skin; I try to make it my policy to be clear when I don't want someone's support or validation, at least when it comes to issues that connect to one another in difficult and sensitive ways like Ukraine's wartime experience in the 1940s and its wartime experience today. You're also not in any danger of being banned, because no, this forum's moderator team does not have the standards of Big Daddy Xi's walled-garden internet and has no desire to adopt them. Your current "posting" "strategy" is funny, not upsetting.

On the subject, this is a total unforced error and exposes the hypocrisy of the Western cause, similar to the Indian assassination of the Sikh activist. At this point, we're in a new Cold War and anything negative for the West is good for China. I love to see it because it forces you to choose between two bad options: stay true to your principles and attack your ally, or condone the action and show the hypocrisy? I commend you for sticking to your principles in this case and criticizing your ally, I know it hurts to do but you're doing the right thing.

It actually doesn't hurt at all, but thanks, I guess.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The SS killed quite a number of people who had previously lived in loud, polluted, congested cities, such as Warsaw, Kiev/Kyiv, Lublin, Lwow/Lviv, and others in different parts of Europe. Going from living in a loud, polluted, congested city to getting killed in the Holocaust is generally considered to have been a turn for the worse in the stories of these people's lives.