627
"I live here now"
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
627 points (97.0% liked)
Comics
7008 readers
619 users here now
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple “- Me” would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the ‘Link’ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's even further back. I'm talking about the period when the Russian empire controlled the territory. During that time (+100 years), there was far more economic integration with the Ruthenians than there was with Russia proper. It made more logistical sense, it's the same reason for which Crimea was ceded to Ukraine by the Soviets, Kiev due to its positioning was better suited to administratively control it.
The tsar sought to increase his influence over the region and began the process of russification, to tie the valuable region to Russia proper. The Soviets accelerated this, as they did in most of the other Soviet states.
Also thanks to ml mods to shut down any discussion. Come on, you're better than just censoring comments.
The soviets did not expand russification, it was the opposite. They preserved and made official tons of minority languages (yiddish comes to mind), even establishing publishing houses in these languages. In addition to the SSRs that preserved the national identities and cultures of the given republics, the soviets instituted protections for minorities within these ssrs.
Initially this is absolutely true! Under Lenin particularly this was very much promoted "indiginenisation" iirc it's best translated as in English. But particularly under Khrushchev and later Breznhnev this very much changed, focusing on the single Soviet identity.
They didn't really prosecute these minorities mind, just very much promoted the Soviet culture and Russian language in a large variety of ways.
You dont get to post vibes base ahistoric nonsense (like you again did) then cry about mods "censoring" you.
Do you have any supporting evidence whatsoever for the claim that Russiafication was worse under the Soviets than under the tsar? Because if not, the mods are well within their rights to remove your unsupported claims as misinformation.
Sure, here's a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai
The Soviets pursued korenization initially, which actually revived efforts towards Ukrainization. But this was later stopped and reversed to pursue a single Soviet identity with the Russian language. Ukrainian culture was suppressed and even Ukrainian membership of the communist party declined sharply. Russification intensified under Khrushchev and later Brezhnev.
That's an entire book, about an entirely different topic, written by the British ambassador working in the last few years of the USSR.
Do you at least have a page number where he compares Ukraine during the USSR compared to Tsarist Russia? It is specifically the claim that Donbass was was more heavily suppressed than in Tsarist Russia that I'm disputing.
Page 151 has what you're looking for:
You trust an anti-communist british ambassador at their word?
I trust someone who was actually there more than a random user on the internet, yes. If you have a source that shows the opposite, feel free to share.
You're not going to find many books to the effect of, "see how hegemonic we aren't", so you mainly need to look at how the ussr treated republics within it, and especially preserved national minorities.
The USSR academy of sciences published works in many languages, same for the state publishing houses.
There are also some longer works on the languages of the USSR, because there was such a diversity of them and the constitution mandated their protection, but I haven't read them.
Compare with the US (wiped out every indigenous language), or the UK (tried to do the same for Irish and Welsh). It's always projection with these anticommunist westerner historians.
You can see the diversity here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Soviet_Union
@dessalines @ChairmanMeow Why won't those ungrateful Ukrainians just surrender to Putin's kindly embrace?
I wonder if you'd apply the same standard in reverse. If a Chinese ambassador says something about the US, should I just take them at their word with no further evidence, until someone can prove that their claim is wrong?
If said Chinese ambassador wrote a book that was also sourced (like this British ambassador's book is in a fair few places), their claims aren't disputed by any factual evidence and is generally corroborated by historians, I'd be inclined to believe them yes.
I wouldn't expect said ambassador to have a scientific study backing up every single sentence in the book. If he's writing about his experiences, that can be a valuable perspective on things. I wouldn't treat it as gospel necessarily but I can still apply critical thinking to ascertain whether or not they're a credible source.
So the British ambassador asserts that the Soviets did the same thing as the Tsars but it was "more brutal." What, specifically, does "more brutal" mean here? As in, more people affected? What were the numbers? Where did he get those? Am I just expected to take his word for it?
This is kind of interesting considering that you've claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.
Where does this information come from? Were there polls on whether Russians saw this as discrimination? Or is it anecdotal/vibes based, something that the British ambassador simply assumes the Russians must have felt?
I claimed the russification process was more severe, not the executions. It's well known that as a part of destalinization the executions largely stopped. That doesn't mean the Union stopped promoting russification.
If you have a source that claims the opposite, feel free to share it.