849
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/comics@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -3 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Sure, here’s a source: https://archive.org/details/acrossmoscowrive00brai

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.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -3 points 2 days ago

Page 151 has what you're looking for:

The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’. Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued. Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination. In fact it was a sign that the Russians did not need their own party, since they dominated the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and exercised effective central control over the republican parties. Throughout the Soviet period discontent flared up from time to time in one or other of the constituent republics, and was brutally suppressed.

[-] Grapho@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

That's... A claim, not a source. A printed claim is still a claim ffs.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago

You trust an anti-communist british ambassador at their word?

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -5 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago

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

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -3 points 2 days ago

Perhaps also read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification then, which is linked on that page. It explains how the Soviets:

  • Forced other languages to use cyrillic if they didn't before, aligning the spelling of words with Russian
  • Made Russian a mandatory subject in schools
  • In mostly urban areas made sure education was primarily provided in Russian
  • Made indigenous people learn Russian, but Russian immigrants to those areas did not learn the indigenous language there

These were all policies aimed at "unifying" the various cultures in the Soviet Union and strengthening control.

Early Soviet Union is as you described, promoting various cultures and languages. Lenin saw that as a way to gain favour with the local populations. Later leaders however went down a different path.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

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?

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -2 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Grapho@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 day ago

Ok, point at those fair few (lmao) places. That was the original question.

Spare us the hot dogging, show us verifiable facts or shut up.

[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago

The reality was, of course, that Russian and later Soviet imperial rule was at least as brutal as that of other imperial powers. In their campaigns of Russification the Tsars imprisoned and exiled Finns, Ukrainians, and others who dared to practise their national language and sustain a national culture. The Communists continued the practice even more brutally under the guise of eradicating ‘bourgeois nationalism’.

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?

Large numbers of intellectuals, especially in Ukraine and the Baltic States, were killed or exiled by Stalin. Under his successors the executions were fewer but the pressures continued.

This is kind of interesting considering that you've claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.

Communist Parties, with their own local First Secretaries, existed in all the fifteen constituent republics of the Union save for Russia itself. Russians saw this as discrimination.

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?

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -3 points 2 days ago

This is kind of interesting considering that you've claimed that the repression was most severe under his successors.

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.

[-] Grapho@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

You're making the claims, you get the source. It's really not that hard.

You don't have a source? It's ok. Don't make claims, only repeat things you checked the source for.

No investigation, no right to speak.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -1 points 1 day ago

I've already provided a source.

[-] Grapho@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

You provided a second claim from somebody else. That's not a source. Sources include verifiable facts.

[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

If you actually bothered to read the book at least a little bit, you'd have read he actually sources a fair bit.

He's also providing an eyewitness account from his time there. I'm not sure how much more primary you want to get.

[-] Grapho@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

If you had actually bothered to link the specific instances where he sources those claims, we would have read them.

But you didn't, because you probably didn't read a book you want us to go on a wild goose chase for. Eyewitness accounts from anglos are only good enough to wipe your ass with and even then there's better alternatives.

No facts then? Cool, I thought so.

this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
849 points (96.9% liked)

Comics

7022 readers
303 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:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS