4 ms·

I agree that it is irrelevant. It is more like a linguistic research from my part. If the author understand Nazism in a different manner then I was taught in sc

by ordu 5y ago

I agree that it is irrelevant. It is more like a linguistic research from my part. If the author understand Nazism in a different manner then I was taught in school, then I'd better pick it up, or I would misunderstand all such arguments. > But why on Earth is anyone buying into it? Russians buy it, because their propaganda shows them enough "facts" of Ukrainians attack Russians. Outside of Russia it seems to me no one buys it.

hef19898 5y ago
I'm German, so I do have obviously a view on Nazism. I was never taught the USSRs perspective on WW2 so. I think mainly because of the Cold War propaganda, we skipped ( and I had a really great history teacher at that time) over the Russian effort. Turns out now, that this lack of education, for lack of a better term, might be an issue. So, sincere question, what is the Russian understanding of Nazism?
- ordu 5y ago
  I think it is close to a modern understanding of rasism, though an extreme variant: one race to rule them all. To rule or to genocide. Hitler was not so much against Jews he was against non-Aryan people, the group that included Jews and Russians and African, and Asian, and almost everyone. I'm not sure is it a good definition or not, but it is how it is. I vaguely suspect that this definition even may be offensive to Jews (judging by a recent Ruby Goldberg blooper), but honestly I have no intention to be offensive, just describing how it is. And trying to understand the other point of view.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    > Hitler was not so much against Jews he was against non-Aryan people Well, first and foremost Nazi were anti-semites. All other "minor" and "undesirable" people and races came after that.
    - ordu 5y ago
      Ok. Got it.
- roveo 5y ago
  Well, it's complicated. I think Putin's understanding of a "Nazi" is deeply connected to the Russian trauma of WWII that the West still doesn't get. Russians believe that due to the sheer number of lives lost, the USSR (and so Russia as its successor state) played _the_ central role in WWII. I encourage you to watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU (the relevant parts start at about 4:40 and 9:40) I personally think that it makes no sense to talk about "who made the victory" because it was an allied effort and none of the allies could have done it alone. But at the same time, I think that westerners just don't get how personal and traumatic this was for the people of Russia. So, Putin is very sensitive to any view on WWII that differs from his. Things like "this was just two dictators (Stalin and Hitler) fighting". Or the view of some Ukrainian nationalists that the communists and the nazis were just both occupants (same view exists in Poland), or even that the nazis were liberators from communism. There's history of collaborationism in the Ukraine, as is everywhere, but not everywhere the collaborationists are viewed by a lot of people as national heroes, not as traitors who joined the aggressor (the nazis). I personally understand why this view exists, but for Putin and most Russians it's just outrageous. So, for Putin a nazi is mostly someone who disagrees with the Russian view on the role of the USSR in WWII. That includes nationalists from countries that Putin views as satellites/buffers (ex-USSR and socialist block), but Western countries that don't get how it looks from the Russian side, even those that were allies in WWII, are also tinted with this "nazi" color.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Thanks for the answer. And it makes sense. It's not that lkng ago that I came to realize how much of what I know about WW2 is in fact heavily influenced by post-War propaganda. Being West-German, that propaganda is obviously anti-Communist. I think there is truth to the saying that WW2 was won by English intelligence (I wpuld add stuborness), Soviet blood and American bullets (as a synonym for industrial power).
  - env123 5y ago
  - drran 5y ago

by ordu 5y ago

hef19898 5y ago

I'm German, so I do have obviously a view on Nazism. I was never taught the USSRs perspective on WW2 so. I think mainly because of the Cold War propaganda, we skipped ( and I had a really great history teacher at that time) over the Russian effort. Turns out now, that this lack of education, for lack of a better term, might be an issue. So, sincere question, what is the Russian understanding of Nazism?

ordu 5y ago
I think it is close to a modern understanding of rasism, though an extreme variant: one race to rule them all. To rule or to genocide. Hitler was not so much against Jews he was against non-Aryan people, the group that included Jews and Russians and African, and Asian, and almost everyone. I'm not sure is it a good definition or not, but it is how it is. I vaguely suspect that this definition even may be offensive to Jews (judging by a recent Ruby Goldberg blooper), but honestly I have no intention to be offensive, just describing how it is. And trying to understand the other point of view.
- hef19898 5y ago
  > Hitler was not so much against Jews he was against non-Aryan people Well, first and foremost Nazi were anti-semites. All other "minor" and "undesirable" people and races came after that.
  - ordu 5y ago
    Ok. Got it.
roveo 5y ago
Well, it's complicated. I think Putin's understanding of a "Nazi" is deeply connected to the Russian trauma of WWII that the West still doesn't get. Russians believe that due to the sheer number of lives lost, the USSR (and so Russia as its successor state) played _the_ central role in WWII. I encourage you to watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU (the relevant parts start at about 4:40 and 9:40) I personally think that it makes no sense to talk about "who made the victory" because it was an allied effort and none of the allies could have done it alone. But at the same time, I think that westerners just don't get how personal and traumatic this was for the people of Russia. So, Putin is very sensitive to any view on WWII that differs from his. Things like "this was just two dictators (Stalin and Hitler) fighting". Or the view of some Ukrainian nationalists that the communists and the nazis were just both occupants (same view exists in Poland), or even that the nazis were liberators from communism. There's history of collaborationism in the Ukraine, as is everywhere, but not everywhere the collaborationists are viewed by a lot of people as national heroes, not as traitors who joined the aggressor (the nazis). I personally understand why this view exists, but for Putin and most Russians it's just outrageous. So, for Putin a nazi is mostly someone who disagrees with the Russian view on the role of the USSR in WWII. That includes nationalists from countries that Putin views as satellites/buffers (ex-USSR and socialist block), but Western countries that don't get how it looks from the Russian side, even those that were allies in WWII, are also tinted with this "nazi" color.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Thanks for the answer. And it makes sense. It's not that lkng ago that I came to realize how much of what I know about WW2 is in fact heavily influenced by post-War propaganda. Being West-German, that propaganda is obviously anti-Communist. I think there is truth to the saying that WW2 was won by English intelligence (I wpuld add stuborness), Soviet blood and American bullets (as a synonym for industrial power).
- env123 5y ago
- drran 5y ago