I mean, it was embarrassing. But we can also say that embarrassing experience had shaped who you are today therefore it was necessary. Thank you for the retrospective Mr. brain guy.
Oh fuuuuck of. There are books based on actual KGB archives that were opened up. Rape of Berlin is well described. There are books about the actual bordelos attached to armies. Western armies. Soviet officers had army wives. Apparently they still do.
There are countless accounts of people prefering Nazi soldiers to soviets. It is THE reason central and easter Europe hates russia.
No data on rapes my ass. But pleeenty of data that soviets single handedly saved the world from Nazis.
Wow, so the released KGB archives show the tapes. I wonder what would happen if the Americans or the English did that too!
Hatred of Russians by eastern Europeans is due to 30+ years of anti-communist propaganda. The fact that poles hate the USSR which liberated more than the very Nazis who genocided millions of them, shows this. And it wasn’t the case 40 years ago.
Polls in France after WW2 showed 70%+ of people saying it was the USSR who saved them from Nazism. Nowadays, it’s 70% Americans. That’s what Hollywood and propaganda do.
What’s your point? Every rape is to be condemned and prosecuted. What isn’t fair is making up claims about the amount of rapes by a certain demographic and not backing that up with extensive evidence. That exactly what racist people do against immigrants, and that’s what Nazis did against soviets.
We do know however that the Red Army had the most investigations of and prosecutions of rapists, so it’s a bit of a “Swedish rape crisis” problem where they look worse on paper than other countries simply because their record keeping of the crime in question is better.
Oh, boy. Good that soviets took such good care of recording rapes. Unlike bad western nazies. White washing soviet rapes with statistics.
There is also one more reason. soviets had no bordelos for the regular army. Only officers had army wives. It is a known fact. So what would regular grunts would do is rape anything they find.
But probably western propaganda. Because in communism, everyone is equal, and everything belongs to everyone.
East Germany paid war reparations to the Soviets while rebuilding itself into an industrial powerhouse - the people who “stole most of East Germany’s infrastructure” were the West German capitalists after reunification, when the whole region was forcibly de-industrialized and left a shadow of its former self that still hasn’t fully recovered over thirty years later.
I read Stasi State or Socialist Paradise some years ago, I recommend it for anyone interested in a history of East Germany that isn’t written by West German propagandists.
Soviets were the only ones who truly supported the Spanish democracy against the fascist. Every other country, including Poland, turned their back to us while the Luffwaffle was bombing our citizens.
He was radicalized against the Soviets because they did not support the socialist revolution led by anarchosyndicalists. Instead Stalin supported the liberals because he said it wasn’t time for revolution yet which is BS since Barcelona and big parts of Catalonia did well under anarchists. An anarchist revolution would undermine the “ends justify the means” and “there is no other way to socialism than ours” rhetoric of the bolsheviks.
TLDR He was an anti-Soviet agitator but from the left
It was after. That also radicalized him towards class solidarity and socialism. He empathized with the suppressed indigenous peoples there and in the next step with the suppressed in his own country. He went to meet them and live with them as documented in his book The Road to Wigan Pier. Then, as a vaguely socialist, he went to Spain as documented in Homage to Catalonia. I read both books btw
Soviets were the only ones who truly supported the Spanish democracy against the fascist.
Curious that their backstabbing the Spanish republicans was instrumental in losing the Spanish Civil War for the republican side. Strange kind of support.
You’re on Divide By Zero, you should be fucking familiar with how they fucked the anarchists and the Trots, and that most of their ‘aid’ was purchased, not given.
I’m friends with everyone leftist, even if they hate each other. I can feel comfortable among anarchist, tankies, socdems, new age leftists, reformist, etc. Because I know what our common objective is and I just can’t care about the subtle differences. So I know the anarchist side of the story as well as I know the tankie side.
Being myself an active member of the social movement in my country and actually having watched modern day anarchist working with modern day communists I can say without any doubts that no version is true. Probably both starting arguing about stupid shit, and actual personal problems disguised as political problems, when they should had focused on the real enemy. But anyway I’m thankful for ALL who fought against fascism in Spain, anarchist, communist, republicans… I thank the international brigades, I thank orwell and I thank the soviets and stalinist. They all put their lives on line to stop fascism.
I just despise such an unproductive and harmful division of the left for shit that just does not matter when the true enemy is so big. And sometimes I just see a lust for internal division and eternal losing in such behavior. I don’t know how some leftists have energy left to hate each other after they should had used that energy to fight the true enemy, capitalism and fascism. And I say this for any anarchist who hates tankies and any tankie who hates anarchists. You are not enemies, the enemy is in other direction.
Because I know what our common objective is and I just can’t care about the subtle differences.
Even when those ‘subtle differences’ result in being backstabbed and sold out and the entire cause being lost against a fascist enemy, great. Subtle little differences, like “We need to purge the anarchists and Trots” should be met with “We need complete and total cooperation with the people who want to purge us 😊”
As I said I have actually worked a lot in environments with a diverse leftist spectrum.
And in my experience backstabbing usually goes both ways and is a result of the previous hate (and a lot of the time because personal non political issues) not the other way around.
And yes. The only wins I’ve seen is when there have been total cooperation. Division is always the prelude of defeat.
And be ensure that I would be saying exactly the same words to any tankie who talks about “purging any leftist” no matter what their ridiculous arguments are for such a premise. I’ve heard it all and it is often just as untrue.
I'm guessing his parents are evil libruls and his Aldi wouldn't would've kicked him out after he demanded to talk to the manager for some bullshit reason.
Sure. Even better, if you replace them with ones that will rule this was an error and the president only gets qualified immunity, you’ll still be in the clear because you were acting on what you thought the law was.
If he went to their homes and strangled them himself? Yes. If he ordered someone to do it? The laws and UCMJ apply to those people so no. There’s this thing people keep forgetting about. The UCMJ isn’t just guidelines. It’s actual rules. And murder is still illegal.
IANAL, but there is the presidential power to pardon. So the president could in theory give an illegal order (as long as it is an official act they have immunity) and promise a presidential pardon once the order is fulfilled (therefore extending immunity to the perpetrator). Meaning the president can entirely circumvent the UCMJ.
Can you face state charges for murder if you’re already facing federal charges for the same killing (you crossed state lines)? That sounds like double jeopardy to me.
Yes. You can face state and federal charges separately. Double jeopardy is when they charge for the same crime twice in the same court (state or federal), after you’ve either been convicted or been acquitted.
Specifically they would have to have new evidence in order to charge you a second time in either federal or state court.
Ok yeah fair enough, that sounds reasonable. But to my knowledge the UMCJ is a federal law, not a state law, so how does that line of argument factor in there? You cited that as an example of checks and balances that would prevent people from following illegal orders, but it being a federal law still means the president could circumvent it with the official order plus pardon combo, at least if my understanding of this new supreme court ruling is correct.
Because (just like in NY with Trump, and specific charges) if a crime is committed within a state the state has the right to prosecute regardless of impeachment or federal charges. The UCMJ is technically federal law. But we’re looking at three different aspects of lawful charges for persons who might commit a crime per the Presidents order. The president could absolutely pardon the persons involved. But only at the federal level. There’s nothing stopping the state or states from prosecuting the same individual. It’s not just one set of checks and balances is my point. The department of justice can also bring charges regardless of UCMJ tribunal (Court Material). Which is really where double jeopardy should kick in but doesn’t for service members.
Additionally and most importantly actually, a court martial conviction for murder would result in a dishonorable discharge from the military. That can’t be overturned by a presidential pardon. They would lose their benefits. Medical and so on. Pensions. It’s a cost benefit analysis at that point. They don’t just get to walk away no harm no foul cause presidential pardon.
All good points if true. However I will say that to my limited understanding a crime under a specific law having been pardoned, that same law can then not be used to prosecute this crime anymore. Meaning states would have to find a different (preferably state) law under which the same offence is punishable.
And that is all disregarding other issues like packed courts, republican controlled states, the vagueness of double-jeopardy in this regard, and the general chilling effect a presidential pardon would have on prosecutors to even press charges in the first place.
The loss of benefits is easily circumvented by promising a golden parachute along with the pardon, so I could still see a lot of fanatics doing the crime “for country and freedom” or whatever they tell themselves.
Overall this seems like a potentially dangerous erosion of checks and balances that is easily abused when put in the wrong hands. As the dissenting opinions in the ruling openly state.
I don’t disagree with that in the grand scheme of things. But a presidential pardon can only be accepted under the understanding that the person who receives it is admitting by accepting it that they committed the crime. As such a service member with a dishonorable discharge would not have their benefits re-instated, for instance.
Yeah but like I said, if you promise some other form of compensation on the level or above what they lose in benefits, you will still find people willing to follow these illegal orders. Hell you could find people willing to follow illegal orders even before this ruling, but now that the presidents right to give illegal orders is explicitly enshrined in constitutional jurisprudence this pre-existing problem is much worse. I doubt those people will care about a dishonourable discharge, on the contrary it will make them martyrs to “the cause” and they will be worshipped for it. And it remains to be seen how all this would play out in court, I guess it’s quite possible for the defence to argue that if the president has immunity for giving orders, their subordinates have immunity for following those orders.
That it was offered is nigh impossible to prove if the offer is only made verbally though. And conversely, if they make the offer an “official act” they are immune again.
The Criminal Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is responsible for processing all local criminal matters including felony, misdemeanor, District of Columbia code violations and criminal traffic cases.
If it is an official act, which would mean they would have to assassinate you in their function of being the president. In other words, they couldn’t just kill their neighbors.
They could probably kill them as part of a celebration, I guess. Jk, I hope.
The president has always been allowed to assassinate you… They’re in charge of the CIA/FBI/NSA/IRS/Other scary 3 letters who assassinate people all the time.
Making presidents immune in official actions is almost required given the sheer number of decisions they have to make and the scrutiny they’re under means they’re sure to break laws sometimes, plus the subjectivity of some laws (eg is making bad decisions and crashing the econony/causing infighting in the military or whatever else treason?) however in unofficial actions they should absolutely not be immune.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn’t work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !aboringdystopia
When the Nazi Party won several municipal, state and national elections in between 1930 and 1932, Adenauer, a strong opponent of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, still believed that improvements in the national economy would make his strategy work: ignore the Nazis and concentrate on the Communist threat. He thought that based on election returns, the Nazis should become part of the Prussian and Reich governments, even when he was already the target of intense personal attacks. Political maneuverings around the ageing President Hindenburg then brought the Nazis to power on 30 January 1933.
By early February, Adenauer finally realized the futility of all discussions and any attempts at compromise with the Nazis. Cologne’s city council and the Prussian parliament had been dissolved; on 4 April 1933, he was officially dismissed as mayor and his bank accounts were frozen. “He had no money, no home and no job.” After arranging for the safety of his family, he appealed to the abbot of the Benedictine monastery at Maria Laach for a stay of several months. According to Albert Speer in his book Spandau: The Secret Diaries, Hitler expressed admiration for Adenauer, noting his civic projects, the building of a road circling the city as a bypass, and a “green belt” of parks. However, both Hitler and Speer concluded that Adenauer’s political views and principles made it impossible for him to play any role in Nazi Germany.
Adenauer was imprisoned for two days after the Night of the Long Knives on 30 June 1934; however, on 10 August 1934, maneuvering for his pension, he wrote a ten-page letter to Hermann Göring, the Prussian interior minister. He stated that as Mayor he had violated Prussian laws in order to allow Nazi events in public buildings and Nazi flags to be flown from city flagpoles, and that in 1932 he had declared publicly that the Nazis should join the Reich government in a leading role.[24][25] At the end of 1932, Adenauer had indeed demanded a joint government by his Zentrum party and the Nazis for Prussia
What a cool dude. Glad this guy was able to get back in charge of the German government in 1949, because his views were so incredibly normal and good and definitely not what might enable fascism to take root a second time.
In a speech on 20 September 1949, Adenauer denounced the entire denazification process pursued by the Allied military governments, announcing in the same speech that he was planning to bring in an amnesty law for the Nazi war criminals and he planned to apply to “the High Commissioners for a corresponding amnesty for punishments imposed by the Allied military courts”
Incredible leadership. Fantastic. Awesome. Love it.
lemmy.world
Oldest