Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Millions of Dead Ukrainians Suggest That Ignoring History Is Dangerous
In reading about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I’ve come across sources that mention Russia’s economy, Putin’s historical revisionism, Zelenskyy’s background as an actor, Russian military tactics, oil pipelines, Finland’s military might, and the complex history between Russia and Ukraine. But I am amazed that there is one name that I have not seen mentioned anywhere: Lazar Kaganovich.
In a strange twist of fate, I am friends (not close friends, but friends) with Mr. Kaganovich’s grandson. Sort of a long story. I’ve considered writing about that. But not today. Regardless, as most of you know, Mr. Kaganovich was born to a Yiddish-speaking Jewish family in what is now Ukraine, became one of Joseph Stalin’s most trusted friends, and ended up being the leader of the Ukrainian genocide (the Holodomor famine) which killed 3-4 million Ukrainians under absolutely brutal conditions. He is remembered as one of Stalin’s most vicious henchmen. Although my friend remembers him as a kind, doting grandfather. Wow. Anyway…
Ten years ago, I befriended a woman who moved to Tennessee from Ukraine with her junior high school daughter (who was in my daughter’s class – they became best friends). I mentioned that I knew Kaganovich’s grandson, and my friend was shocked, but her daughter had no idea who he was. She went to school in Ukraine until age 14, and had never heard of Kaganovich, who was responsible for the deaths of many in her family. I wonder how many Ukrainians are unaware of this period of their history? It was 90 years ago, so no one alive was there at the time. But is it possible that no one remembers it at all?
Granted, Ukraine’s oppression under Soviet rule from WWII to 1991 was no picnic, either. And perhaps it is the combination of these two events which is motivating Ukraine’s spirited defense of their homeland against Russian invaders. They appear to have a much more clear understanding of what Russia represents than, say, President Biden. And honestly, they should.
While we seem to be minimizing the evil of Russian leadership, that in itself may be proof of just how consistently evil they are. For example:
Imagine if 70 years ago, Germany had killed millions of Jews (which, of course, they did). And then imagine that Germany invaded Israel today. Can you imagine the press coverage? Every Western news channel would run endless loops of Hitler speeches and Jews in concentration camps. As they should.
But yet, here we are, with Russia invading Ukraine. Again. And there has been little to no discussion of Ukrainian suffering under Soviet occupation from 1956-1991, and no mention whatsoever of the butcher of the Holodomor, Lazar Kaganovich. There are no screaming headlines of the evil of Putin, comparing him to Kaganovich (as the media would have compared Germany’s invasion of Israel to the Nazis).
No – It’s Russia. I mean, c’mon. This is just what they do, right?
Perhaps the media doesn’t bring up Kaganovich because they don’t have to. The vicious tactics of Russia aren’t excused, exactly. They’re just presumed. After all, it’s Russia that we’re talking about here, right? Perhaps. But I really don’t think so.
I would feel better if we paid more attention to history. Instead of reading story after story about how Putin feels about his progress in Ukraine this afternoon, perhaps we should be looking at this invasion as just a small part of a big picture. This isn’t a shocking aberration. It’s just another brick in the wall.
Putin may be unpredictable. But Russia is not. They even cheat in figure skating, for Pete’s sake. Even when everybody knows they’re cheating, and they’ve already been suspended. They lie, and they cheat. After all, it’s Russia we’re talking about here, right? Even Jimmy Carter figured this out. Eventually.
But because so many in our media and our ruling class share Russia’s affinity for socialism, bureaucratic power, and other centralized control systems, they are hesitant to criticize Russia too harshly. When your beliefs don’t make any sense, then hypocrisy becomes a cardinal sin. Dissenting viewpoints become heresy when you know you’re on shaky ethical ground. So criticism of Russia must be done gently.
Focus on the omelets, not the eggs. Call Putin unpredictable. But don’t call Russia a dangerous, dishonest, oppressive, imperialist power based on centralized control systems. That just wouldn’t do.
This is just an understandable disagreement between some white dudes in Europe. This is not evidence of the horrors of government power that American Democrats covet so openly. Heavens no. Golly, that Putin guy is so unpredictable.
Right.
Let’s fund Russia’s military by buying petroleum from them! Great idea! That way, we can pretend to believe in climate change, with no consequences! Awesome! Why not? Russia’s just some other country, like Sweden or whatever, right? What’s the worst that could happen? Don’t listen to all those dead Ukrainians. There’s fund-raising to do!
Understanding history can make seemingly complex decisions become more straightforward.
Many tyrants have openly acknowledged that you can’t control a country’s future without first controlling its history. Islamists seek to control countries by destroying any ancient artifacts which don’t fit with Islam. Putin just gave a speech claiming that his Russian ‘peacekeeping forces’ were merely attempting to free Ukraine from Nazi control (Ukraine’s Prime Minister is Jewish). American leftists have been tearing down statues and renaming schools on a wholesale level. All for the same reason.
You can’t control a country’s future without controlling its history.
And people wonder why those who love freedom are so upset about the historical revisionism of the left. We should remember history. Even the bad parts of it.
Especially the bad parts of it.
Our lives may depend on it. Many, many, many other lives may depend on it, too. Just ask a dead Ukrainian.
Published in General
I reject this. The only thing non-interventionsism itself rejects is intervention.
If you justify an intervention by calling it calculus, then when I oppose it, you will see me as anti-calculus.
I used to be gung-ho for the show, and even had some minor personal participation. I supported Iraq both times, went to Afghanistan twice, and now I don’t support any of that stuff, for a number of reasons. So you may find cracks in my story from time to time.
The motto on my old blog used to be this soaring sentiment, which gained me many compliments:
Beautiful, isn’t it? Truly stunning and brave. Stun grenades and brave new world.
The motto I settled on is this:
You cannot free another except in carefully-designed individual, truck-full of migrants type stories. You cannot free a people, and you cannot change a mind. Mind your own business, mind your own people.
The US Civil War and Emancipation comes to mind as an exception. Well, it depends how you look at it. The way I choose to look at it naturally supports my conclusion, and at any rate that was not an intervention. That was the US freeing itself — as advertised.
Countries act in their own interest. That does not determine which country is good and which one is bad. Moral equivalency debates are rarely about morality.
I would prefer the Carthage solution to the build back better solution when a country or its proxies attack us.
Also, before the Bay of Pigs, Castro seized and nationalized US-owned businesses.
Interventionist: “Hitler is an evil dictator.”
Non-interventionist: “Hitler is not so bad.”
Interventionist: “He’s exterminating the Jews”.
Non-interventionist: “Well, what does ‘exterminate’ really mean. Anyway, the Jews are at fault too.”
These are the kinds of arguments I’ve been hearing from isolationists and non-interventionists for more than 50 years. The dictator might be Saddam Hussain or Vladimir Putin or many other names over the years. The people we are supposed to stand by and watch being butchered might be Bosnians or Tutsi or Ukrainians or Cubans or Chinese. (Non-interventionist: “Well, what does ‘butchered’ really mean.”)
Interventionist: “Look at what was achieved in Germany and Japan and Italy and Iraq and (until Biden pushed it over) Afghanistan.”
Non-interventionist: “Well, Germany was a special case. And Japan was a special case. And Italy was a special case. Iraq: it’s nowhere near a perfect society. And anyway, who cares if Afghan girls get to go to school. Barefoot and pregnant is God’s way.”
Except there were no NATO missiles and no NATO nukes in Ukraine-so other than being completely different, it is just like the Cuban missile crisis….
While Soviet rule cost tens of millions of lives of Soviet citizens overall*, the most common figure just for the Ukrainian artificial famine of 1932-1933 is up to 5 million.
Russians called Ukrainians “Malorusy” — Little Russians. They were always second-class citizens. But still better off than Asians.
The Russians are some of the most racist people on earth, as African communists attending Marxist schools in Russia learned the hard way.
*Toward the end of the Soviet Union, even the KGB estimated 32 million dead.
I don’t think it is interventionism at all. The USA has a direct national interest in stopping Putin. We won’t go for the Ukrainians or for the Poles or Lithuania. We will go to stop Putin from creating such instability that will cause harm to the USA and its interests. We are already there. I believe that not even Biden will allow Putin his expansionism. We are already waging war along with our allies. The hope is that the strong sanctions will be enough, but if it won’t, military action will be taken. I’m praying that he is stopped without it.
I’ll give you one chance to take that back.
What has any of that got to do with the highly kinetic diplomatic engagement going on in Ukraine? Do you really want the official posture of the United States to escalate? We have already gone from “disappointed” to “very concerned.” Who knows what could happen if we were to bump that up to “really cheesed off”? Do we even have enough ribbons stockpiled for some serious collective expressions of disapproval?
It was not, indeed. But I’m not convinced that Ukrainians were the Bengali equivalents and Russia the British in that situation.
Part of this is a matter of what they thought was important. Ukrainian nationalists feel nationality is important – so of course the Holodomor is about nationality.
But if it was just all about killing Ukrainians why were there similar famines, at the same time, in Kazakhstan and Western Siberia and Southern Russia?
If the Soviet Union was just a Russian Supremacist thing, how did we get Stalin?
Everything bad is not the same thing, I think is my point.
Interventionist: China has corrupted Hong Kong, launch Nukes!
Non-interventionist: Pump the brakes on starting Armageddon.
Interventionist: Canada has de-banked the truckers, launch Nukes!
Non-interventionist: Pump the brakes on starting Armageddon.
Interventionist: Facebook showed some lady in Australia arrested roughly, launch Nukes!
Non-interventionist: Pump the brakes on starting Armageddon.
No interventionist is actually for launching nukes, so you’re using a straw man argument. Also the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, a.k.a. the False Dichotomy: obviously there are more choices than dropping the Bomb or doing nothing.
Rich after what you just said. See my previous above.
Hitler wasn’t German, Stalin wasn’t Russian but I do not think those fine points mattered to the Jews or the Kulaks in the Ukraine…..
defintion of a kulak- a peasant who owned one+ more cow(s) than his neighbors
“and therefore your honor when she looked at another man I had to rape her for her own good”…
Absolutely.
But it was clearly her fault b/c she should have known he was fully capable of doing it-so he should suffer no legal penalty, in fact she should marry him….and pay him a dowry.
Only in muslim countries.
Oh wait, I forgot. If she was raped before he married her, that means she committed adultery/fornication and must be stoned to death.
The man, however, is not stoned to death, because there were no (male, respectable, etc) witnesses.
Yes to the first question. Possibly to the 2nd.