#& reaction to the soviets

[beekeeperspicnic]

It's here: the GIF you never knew you needed.

Sherlock Holmes reacting to the entire concept of romantic love.

[maxknightley]

broadly speaking I agree with the idea that the flaws of the USSR have been exaggerated by capitalist critics, but I gotta say, I'm not especially sympathetic to the argument "unlike Actual Imperialist nations, the USSR nobly sacrificed its resources to help its backward satellite states Rise Up"

like damn that sure is an argument that "actual" imperialist nations have famously never used lol

[reactionimagesdaily]

[full-timefaggot]

Me, knocking on my roommate's open door: Hey are going to bed for the night?

Them: Yes

Me: Okay I'll yell slurs at MGS 3 Revolver Ocelot quieter

Them: ......Actually just close my door

[zvaigzdelasas]

i just remembered but didn't latvia wanted to colonize countries in africa but couldn't because they were all already colonized in the 1800s? or was it lithuania? or maybe it was denmark and i just can't tell the difference

"was it Latvia or Lithuania" yes lol...Latvia (specifically Courland - Swedes already had Livonia at this point) was a vassal state of Poland-Lithuania at the time, and they took a colony on an island in the Gambian River (1651-1658), as well as in Tobago (1652-1658, 1660-1666, 1668-1689), with the brief period in the late 60s where the Duke of Courland was held captive by the Swedes & thus the Dutch were running things on Latvian Tobago along w their other colonies on the island. Also notably for abt a century after Courland sold off control of the colony on Tobago, they still used a letter of marque and reprisal on the islands territory (meaning they had the "legal" right to use territorial waters to conduct raids against ships & other countries at war w them - basically an official piracy license).

Also notable is that in this era, the ruling class of Latvia were Baltic Germans, whose control over the region started back with the Teutonic Knights &.....arguably never really ended if you look at land ownership (minus the obvious few decades in the 20th century lol). One might notice that "Courland" isn't rly a very Latvian name lol, bc the dominant (& court) language among Curonian nobility was also German lol

Lithuanian rulers in this era were a mix between Lithuanian (Aukštaičių & Žemaičių) Nationals, Ruthenians, and a strong contingent of Poles - Polonization was a quite dominant process in terms of National identity....but the Lithuanian Republic loves to claim a singular position wrt the mantle of legitimacy of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth tho so if we want that we also get the blame for the colonies imo 🤷

[wickedwitzh]

I forbid myself from starting any new wip before I finish homingbird but

I do have ideas for FAM fics… specifically an AU from 2x07 onwards wherein we change the timeline so the Russians don’t shoot down the KAL plane, no one shoots on the Moon and NASA and South Koreans get invited to Moscow to work on a new joint mission…

[sappymix1]

i need to read some academic articles on the reaction to apollo 1 like among nasa and with the us government and the public

[xemylixa]

In view of the Livesey meme, it is now my solemn duty to repost this from myself. Long live Soviet/Ukranian Treasure Island

[metamatar]

bulgakov is a masterful writer and i think the naively religious should not be allowed to comment on master and the margarita

[cryingyetcourageous]

Don't you think you would be less lonely if you and everyone else went back to living with Ivan

Ah... that-

That's a very, eh... interesting solution, Anon, except that I would sooner skin my entire body with a cheese grater than go back to that.

[lipglossboy]

My mom when Bob was sent down to turn the electricity back on in the lab - "I feel sick. I don't want anything to happen to Bob. This show is sick… I mean if they kill Bob."

She keeps picking the exact right characters to worry about 😭

[jewreallythinkthat]

One of the reasons I think there has been such a breakdown between the "progressive" left and the Jewish community is actually something that I've watched before fostered in left wing spaces for well over a decade and that is looking for offence.

When someone says something antisemitic, that does not mean they are an antisemite. I remember when the BLM marches took place, people rightly pointed out that there is a lot of unconscious bias against PoC and that being called out for eating something you didn't realise was problematic does not mean you are actually racist, just that you need to think a bit more when talking about a subject which in many cases, doesn't affect you as such. The same principle should apply to antisemitism.

If I say someone has said something antisemitic, their first reaction (on the left wing - because the right will proudly nod that yes, it was antisemitic) is often "you're calling me an antisemite and trying to silence me, Zionist". This is not true. What I am saying is that you are saying something that is discriminatory, invoked blood libel, accused Jews of ruling the world etc etc. I fully believe most people do not realise they are doing this. The point of dog whistles is that you are not supposed to recognise them, that's how they propagate. Anti-jewish racism is one of the oldest forms of hatred and it stretches back multiple millennia so it makes sense that it's literally inside the common vernacular. That doesn't mean everyone using it is an antisemite.

Instead of immidiately jumping to the defensive, I wish people would take a moment to ask, in good faith, "why would a Jewish person find this antisemitic?" Take the opportunity to learn, to better themself. Do not assume every Jew is trying to silence you - assuming the worst every time of Jewish people is a type of antisemitism so please try and put yourself in their shoes and maybe even ask them to explain so you can do better in the future.

Just a general overview, here's a couple of ones to look out for (a non exhaustive list).

1. Replace the word "Zionist" in what has Ben said with "Jew". If it sounds like something leeched out of Nazi Germanh or the Soviet Union, it's probably going to be antisemitism.

2. Saying you don't think any country should exist but focusing exclusively on the destruction of Israel. The only thing that makes Israel unique is that it's a Jewish majority country. So why is that the only county you actively want to get rid of?

2.1 Holding Israel to a higher standard than any other country is antisemitic as laid out above in point 2.

3. Assuming the worst of Jews and Israel every time is antisemitism. It's no different to assuming Black people are always out to get you or all Muslims are terrorists. If it's racist to do this to one minority group, it is racist to do it to any.

4. Tokenizing extremists in a community (Ben Gvir and the West Bank settlers on the right wing in Israel, the Neturi Karta by the progressive left when discussing I/P) is racist. If you only listen to Jews who prove your point, you are actively excluding the majority of a community so you can beat them down, this is racist.

I don't like calling people antisemitic because most people are not actually that, what they are is uneducated on antisemetism because the majority of that education is not being done by Jews - let alone Jews who represent the majority of the community.

But if you refuse to talk to Jews in good faith when they try to explain why what you have said is antisemitic, you are running the risk of moving from "ignorant user of antisemetic language" to "antisemite" (also a note, ignorant not meaning stupid but rather that you do not know something).

[max1461]

Man, I think the founding ideals of the United States are just so deeply admirable in so many ways, it just sucks that in actual practice the United States was built on slavery and genocide. And, man, I just think the ideals of the French revolution are so deeply admirable in so many ways! It just sucks that as soon as shit hit the fan the revolutionaries turned to authoritarianism and mass murder and then fell completely into reaction. And, man, I think the founding ideals of the Soviet Union were so deeply admirable in so many ways! It just sucks that the USSR so quickly abandoned democracy and fell into authoritarianism, mass murder, and cult of personality.

I'm not really... making a point here. I guess my point is "people with great sounding ideas keep fucking doing mass murder". This isn't a critique of great sounding ideas! People with awful ideas also do mass murder, and often they straight up tell you they are planning to! I don't think we should support them instead. I'm just saying... shit, man. Could people stop doing mass murder and shit?

[apas-95]

if you believe that correct theory leads to good outcomes and incorrect theory to bad outcomes

why didnt the USSR prevail? what were they missing?

to a certain degree the USSR was a victim of circumstance - being the first socialist state it was both navigating uncharted waters, as well as holding the attention of the entire bourgeois world - but it did also have a number of theoretical failings which exacerbated and induced issues. we say of stalin's administration that he was 70% correct and 30% incorrect, not that everything done was right! one of the greatest failings of the USSR was its handling of the national question, and its resulting commandism; an issue of the same type as the one that killed Che in Bolivia. obviously the domestic issue of revisionism overtaking the party was the ultimate cause of the downfall of the soviet union, but the cause of said revisionism was the objective situation that the USSR was in - the desperate attempts to undermine the non-aligned movement, the wrong notion of 'peaceful coexistence' the ussr promulgated, etc were all reactions to the fact that the USSR had, like it or not, locked itself into an irreversible nuclear standoff with the USA that it knew it could not actually follow through on. if you want to know what the ussr was missing, look to the state carrying on the torch. the PRC diverged significantly on the questions that destroyed the USSR, and it survived as a result. the USSR tried to divide the world between itself and the US, the PRC instead integrates itself into the entire world; the USSR tried to export revolution and build a dependent bloc, the PRC refuses to interfere in the self-development of other nations; the USSR established the principle of mutually assured destruction, and the PRC stated 'we are against it, but we are not afraid of it.'

[unofficial-estonia]

Today, 35 years ago, two million people from the Baltic States built a 600-kilometre-long human chain to draw the attention of the World to the fact that they wanted freedom.

The Baltic States managed to restore their independence soon after despite the Soviet central committee raising a question to their very existence as a reaction to the peaceful demonstration.

For the past 35 years, the Baltic States have forged a path towards a better future. However, the Baltic States were dealt with a better hand than some others.

It has been 912 days since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Baltic States remember the "kindness" of our mutual neighbour, and thus we understand that support for Ukraine must remain steadfast. The only acceptable outcome of the war is the Ukrainian victory.

Tomorrow, Ukraine celebrates its independence day. They deserve to celebrate their day peacefully, in all of Ukraine. May it be so next year!

[zvaigzdelasas]

South Africa’s genocide case has put the spotlight on a deeper fault line in global geopolitics. Beyond the courtroom drama, experts say divisions over the war in Gaza symbolize a widening gap between Israel and its traditional Western allies, notably the United States and Europe, and a group of nations known as the Global South — countries located primarily in the southern hemisphere, often characterized by lower income levels and developing economies.

Reactions from the Global North to the ICJ case have been mixed. While some nations have maintained a cautious diplomatic stance, others, particularly Israel’s staunchest allies in the West, have criticized South Africa’s move.

The US has stood by Israel through the war by continuing to ship arms to it, opposing a ceasefire, and vetoing many UN Security Council resolutions that aimed to bring a halt to the fighting. The Biden administration has rubbished the claim that Israel is committing genocide as “meritless,” while the UK has refused to back South Africa.[...]

As a nation whose history is rooted in overcoming apartheid, South Africa’s move carries symbolic weight that has resonated with other nations in the developing world, many of whom have faced the burden of oppression and colonialism from Western powers.

Nelson Mandela, the face of the anti-apartheid movement, was a staunch supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its leader Yasser Arafat, saying in 1990: “We align ourselves with the PLO because, akin to our struggle, they advocate for the right of self-determination.”

Hugh Lovatt, a senior policy fellow with the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that while South Africa’s case is a continuation of its long-standing pro-Palestinian sympathies, the countries that have rallied behind it show deeper frustrations by the Global South.

There is “a clear geopolitical context in which many countries from the Global South have been increasingly critical over what they see as a lack of Western pressure on Israel to prevent such a large-scale loss of life in Gaza and its double standards when it comes to international law,” Lovatt told CNN.

Much of the non-Western world opposes the war in Gaza; China has joined the 22-member Arab League in calling for a ceasefire, while several Latin American nations have expelled Israeli diplomats in protest, and several Asian and African countries have joined Muslim and Arab nations in backing South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ.

For many in the developing world, the ICJ case has become a focal point for questioning the moral authority of the West and what is seen as the hypocrisy of the world’s most powerful nations and their unwillingness to hold Israel to account. [...]

Israel sided with the West against Soviet-backed Arab regimes during the Cold War, and Western countries largely view it “as a fellow member of the liberal democratic club,” he added.[...]

“But the strong support of Western governments is increasingly at odds with the attitudes of Western publics which continue to shift away from Israel,” Lovatt said.

Israel has framed the war in Gaza as a clash of civilizations where it is acting as the guardian of Western values that it says are facing an existential threat.

“This war is a war that is not only between Israel and Hamas,” Israeli President Isaac Herzog told MSNBC in December. “It’s a war that is intended – really, truly – to save Western civilization, to save the values of Western civilization.”

So far, no Western countries have supported South Africa’s case against Israel.

Among Western states, Germany has been one of the most vocal supporters of Israel’s campaign in Gaza. The German government has said it “expressly rejects” allegations that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and that it plans to intervene as a third party on its behalf at the ICJ.

An opinion poll by German broadcaster ZDF this week however found that 61% of Germans do not consider Israel’s military operation in the Gaza Strip as justified in light of the civilian casualties. Only 25% voiced support for Israel’s offensive.

But it is in Germany’s former colonial territory, Namibia, that it has attracted the fiercest criticism.

The Namibian President Hage Geingob in a statement on Saturday chided Berlin’s decision to reject the ICJ case, accusing it of committing “the first genocide of the 20th century in 1904-1908, in which tens of thousands of innocent Namibians died in the most inhumane and brutal conditions.” The statement added that the German government had not yet fully atoned for the killings.

Bangladesh, where up to three million people were killed during the country’s war of independence from Pakistan in the 1970s, has gone a step further to file a declaration of intervention in the ICJ case to back South Africa’s claims, according to the Dhaka Tribune.

A declaration of intervention allows a state that is not party to the proceedings to present its observations to the court.

“With Germany siding with Israel, and Bangladesh and Namibia backing South Africa at the ICJ, the geopolitical divide between the Global South and the West appears to be deepening,” Lovatt said.

Traditionally, the West has wielded significant influence in international affairs, but South Africa’s move signals a growing assertiveness among Global South nations that threatens the status quo, says Adekoya.

“One clear pattern emerging is that the old Western-dominated order is increasingly being challenged, a situation likely to only further intensify as the West loses its once unassailably dominant economic position,” Adekoya said.

19 Jan 24