roachboy

on the narrow factoid level, ustwo is right.
but it seems an interesting problem, the factoid-level correctness followed by a claim to "knowledge of world history"---

obviously the alliance that linked hitler to stalin (1939-1941) ended abruptly with the german invasion.

obviously not everyone in the ussr was equally a fan of stalin's--o what to call them---murderous policies of the 1930s--few areas felt the impact of these more fully than did the ukraine.
that this is the case should by this point be beyond doubt.
witness the famines of the early 1930s for example.

the strange thing was how this came to be understood---apparently a purely antisemitic explanation was compelling to some segments of ukranian society--something on the order of the world jewish-bolshevik conspiracy--at any rate, yes, there were ukranians who not only welcomed the nazis but who went well beyond welcoming--like the ukranian nationalist army--
these fine fellows were most enthusiastic. they demonstrated their enthusiasm by undertaking such lovely duty as accompanying the ss and mowing down jewish women and children...

because, you see, mowing down men was seen as ok, but women and children that were thought to demoralize the ss.

the onu--what great folk--you are right that they existed but obviously know nothing about them: the onu and related organizations machine gunned thousands and thousands of jewish women and children not because they thought stalin was worse than hitler, but rather because they actively agreed with the anti-semitism of nazi ideology.


you chose a really fucked up example for making the point i think you were trying to make.
i really dont know what you are trying to say by using it.
maybe you could explain rather than simply patronize?
because what i see in this argument is the work of an arrogant dilletante, an argument that at a very superficial level fits, but when you actually look at what you refer to twists everything you say through it into a place i doubt seriously that you wanted to go.

because no matter the number of arguments we have in this forum, ustwo, i do not think you actually hold the beliefs that you would have to hold for your post to obtain with any real understanding of what you are referring to historically in place.

either way, it casts your entire position in a funny light--are you really (accidentally or not) equating the collaboration of the the onu and its ilk with the nazis with iraqi collaboration with the american coalition?

i am completely opposed to the iraq adventure and even so would never--ever---have gone this far in denouncing the american occupation.

and i dont think you could have found a way to damage your own position more thoroughly than this had you set out to do it.



side note: curiously, in the fall 1945/early 1946 the command structure of the onu was protected from war crimes prosecution by the united states after ww2 on the grounds that they could form the core of an anti-communist nationalist army. same went for the romainian iron guard--lots and lots of fascists--who were among the worst--were protected by the americans---you know, those champions of democracy.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite