One of the ways of getting into Canada during the postwar period “was by showing the SS tattoo,” Canadian historian Irving Abella told “60 Minutes” interviewer Mike Wallace. “This proved that you were an anti-Communist.”
The Canadian government hasn’t really changed. Some high up government officials are the children and grandchildren of Nazi war criminals: www.google.com/amp/s/ottawacitizen.com/…/amp/
Did you miss the part where France and England refused to join a defensive alliance with the USSR? And did appeasement with the nazis? And how denazification happened more in Eastern Europe than west Germany?
He wasn’t introduced as a nazi, none of those MP’s knew the truth about who they were standing for, and they wouldn’t have if they did. Somebody didn’t do background research, and old nazi never should have been anywhere near parliament. It’s incompetence all around.
He was introduced as having fought the Russians during WW2, there’s literally only one option as to what side that leaves him on. Either parliament is completely devoid of the most basic history education, or they knew damn well what they were applauding.
IIRC, he fought the Russians to protect Ukraine from their invasion. He had no other allegiance to Germany or Nazis. It was a “the enemy of my enemy is my ally” situation.
He volunteered to be part of the waffen ss, they mostly terrorized the civilian population and helped with extermination, they weren’t involved in actual warfighting that much and when they did fight they lost badly because they weren’t meant to be military, they were meant to terrorize civilians and help with extermination.
Most Ukrainians fought for their country as part of the red army. Something like 28:1. The nazi collaborators of the waffen SS like the fascist who was celebrated by the Canadian parliament mostly did “antipartisan activities” which involved killing a bunch of Jewish people.
Some guy in parliament grabbed a Ukrainian who fought the Russians in WWII to make a show for Zelensky visiting parliament, without stopping to consider who the Ukrainians that fought the Russians in WWII were.
But don’t you know, talking about this is Russian propaganda. Look, listen to Trudeau, he says you shouldn’t talk about this and instead fight back against Russian propaganda without missing a beat in the same sentence as he’s apologising. youtu.be/ApEx_UOwJR8
That they didn’t know it was a Nazi, and that applauding him doesn’t change the fact that Russia is a terrorist state that is trying to invade the west through wars and propaganda.
Sounds like what I said. “Stop talking about this, it’s helping the enemy. Did you forget how bad the enemy is? We’re not bad, the enemy is bad” and so on. He was introduced as a Nazi, of course they knew, how could they not.
If they really felt sorry they’d make it known and clearly signal that Nazis aren’t tolerated, not try to minimise reporting.
No it is more: “Stop talking about this because it is disingenuous and misrepresents the situation”
He was not introduced as a Nazi, but as a WW2 veteran that fought against Russia. Because you know, Russia is a much bigger threat to western freedom at the moment than Fascism.
If they really felt sorry they’d make it known and clearly signal that Nazis aren’t tolerated, not try to minimise reporting.
He was not introduced as a Nazi, but as a WW2 veteran that fought against Russia.
So he was introduced as a nazi then? He was introduced as a ukrainian ww2 veteran who fought against Russia. Aka a soldier of the third Reich.
Is your issue that “oh but they framed it in a good way, how can you blame him for clapping for a nazi when the nazi was introduced in a favorable light.”? Do you expect the prime Minister of a country not to know basic facts about the largest war of the last century?
He was not introduced as a Nazi, but as a WW2 veteran that fought against Russia.
??? Is this an especially poor attempt at ‘Never Play Defence’ alt-right play book stuff? That’s the same sentence twice with some words changed. It’s not sneaky and it doesn’t go unnoticed. This isn’t euphemism with plausible deniability. “I didn’t paint my house a dark colour, I painted it a black colour.”
You mean like this:
Okay, so in this article, there’s a short explanation of the situation. They explain that a Jewish rights group wants an apology, which means it’s not necessarily also a demand from everyone else in the country and the publication. Then there explicitly is not an apology. “I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision,” This means he does not apologise. This is not an apology, profuse or otherwise. This is a justification and deflection. This is a bold faced lie designed to construct the narrative that this situation was not deliberate, and that the media is misreporting it. Which is also what you did. This man was intentionally brought out because he was a Nazi and honoured because he was a Nazi. This deflection does not apologise for honouring Nazis. Then somewhere later he apologises, using the words “deepest apologies”, but without the connecting tissue present, we can assume it came right after the deflection, voiding the apology, because he has not acknowledged his mistake. “My deepest apologies that you felt that way.” “My deepest apologies that I am being misrepresented”, “My deepest apologies that I was unwittingly part of a misstep.”
Then the article goes on to quote a special interest group, which means it’s not necessarily also the opinion of everyone else in the country and the publication. Then that group says they’re willing to accept an explanation that diverts guilt if adequate, softening their language.
Afterwards, they quote the Russian embassy to strengthen the connection with the news story, even though this really should be treated as a domestic story. The rest of the article is basically saying Russia is doing war and that’s bad and that should be the focus, not the thing the article is about.
So let’s look at the other article. Oh wait, this is DW. Now this is different, because DW actually has to take an anti-Nazi stand because their readers are often vocal in their criticism of Nazi ideology. But let’s see if they try to soften it anyway. They’re incentivised to soften it, because they are German propaganda in the literal sense, their job is to spread the world-view of the German government, and Canada is a German ally. But surely there’s no way to report this in a way that is sufficiently anti-Nazi without painting their ally in a bad light, unless the Canadian government really properly apologised. So they must’ve apologised profusely like you said. Let’s read.
Immediately it says he apologised, that’s good. But I’ve heard one of his apologies, and he didn’t apologise, he just went through the motions and then blamed Russian disinformation. DW isn’t quoting him. Is this because they want to imply he apologised when he really hasn’t?
“Yaroslav Hunka, a 98-year-old Ukrainian World War II veteran, received two standing ovations. However, it emerged later that Hunka had served in the Waffen-SS Galicia Division,”
Look at this wording. It emerged later that he served in the Waffen-SS. This is true, this is information that was given to the MPs after they clapped. But it sorta sounds a lot like “It emerged later that he was a Nazi”. So they’re using factual reporting to imply something extremely misleading which would completely change the story. This story completely hides the actual fact that he was introduced as a Nazi. Wow, now that’s some proper misinformation propaganda!
Then they quote some lines from the apology. These are good lines, they sound like a proper apology. Though what I notice is that they’re still mostly worried about optics, even in this choice quote. But let’s keep reading. Oh wait, now he’s deflecting responsibility. “even though we did so unaware of the context”. Well that didn’t last long. But there’s no way the informed DW reader would accept that apology! What gives? Right, and this is why they had the wording they did earlier, specifically so that the DW reader isn’t informed. This article is a deliberate misinformation cover piece designed to give the false sense of being informed to readers so that they don’t need to research more, and reading only this, it sounds like a blunder was made and apologised for sufficiently for something that was a small misunderstanding or something else that could possibly not be deliberate. And then it ends with Trudeau saying “Stop talking about this” or “If you hear a different version of events, that’s Russian misinformation”.
how profusely they apologised after they found out he was a Nazi
They did nothing of the sort and these two articles point to nothing of the sort. Not even a little bit. No one single person was jailed. Not one single person was executed. Not one single person was exiled. They didn’t even fire the cabinet. Nobody even acknowledged their actual wrongdoing. These are not apologies. Nothing happened. One rich guy retired.
Russia is a much bigger threat to western freedom at the moment than Fascism.
Fascism isn’t tolerated in Canada and the rest of the west.
This is not true. Especially for the indigenous population but also for settlers, the primary threat has been and remains fascisms. globalnews.ca/…/food-insecurity-poverty-report-ca…
Even if Russia was a substantial threat to people living in Canada, that shouldn’t have any bearing on this story or it’s coverage. Replace the government first, then go back to publishing stories about the need to stay vigilant against Russia. A society unfriendly to Nazis who have been properly informed about what happened would have no problem coming together in a time of crisis like this and help organise and vote in a new government.
You are painting an overly simplified picture. Look up Günter Grass if you don’t believe me.
TLDR: He non forcefully signed up for the SS, although disagreeing with the Nazis. Later he became a nobel prize winning author and member of the famous Group 47. In his publications he tries to get people to think for themselves - not exactly nazi doctrine.
If people only would read history books and actually think about what they read… Instead it seems, most people around here just take their education from inglorious bastards.
We should judge the ones who are left with extreme prejudice and they should desperately be explaining themselves and proving that they actually sabotaged the SS and Nazi empire from within, if they are to regain any humanity.
We shouldn’t judge anyone with prejudice; that’s in the word. We must treat all people as humans; not doing that is a Nazi idea. We should treat signing up with the Nazis as evidence, and act accordingly to prevent Nazis from running around doing and saying Nazi things.
Extreme prejudice has a specific meaning which I doubt you meant. With prejudice also has specific legal meanings. Probably best to avoid this terminology.
Nazi apologia. It doesn’t matter how many books he wrote or how good they were.
Here’s how I read it: His Nazi past wasn’t discovered until after receiving literary awards, which was embarrassing to the literati, so they tried to whitewash him.
Just as there are such things as political prisoners, there are such things as political pardons. Judicial my ass; it was political.
And just as before, whatever the politicians & pundits are raving is neither here nor there. The guy voluntarily joined the Waffen-SS Galicia Division.
Yeah he volunteered to to be solider, so what? Being a solider is not the same thing as being a war criminal and the burden of proof still applies. War is messy and it is entirely possible that this division committed atrocities that haven’t been proven but the mere possibility is not sufficient reason to label him a war criminal. You are de-meaning the term by doing so.
Either you have specific evidence to support your charge or realize you are participating in sensationalism.
He didn’t volunteer to join the regular army and be a regular soldier, he volunteered to be a Waffen-SS paramilitary Nazi soldier, which is quite another thing.
That’s not the context though and misrepresents the situation.
The Speaker of the House invited this guy because he knew of him from his riding. Without doing research or looking further into the circumstances of this individual’s service, the speaker made the decision to recognize this individual.
This has nothing to do with the PM. It’s the speaker and he resigned.
It’s pretty disgusting that people try to twist this into a partisan issue so they can dig at the PM. It’s disingenuous and kind of shitty to misrepresent this situation tbh.
Oh man I didn't realize he resigned over this. I guess it's the kind of egg on your face mistake a political career can't really recover from though...
It’s a brutal mistake. As far as speakers go, they’re supposed to be apolitical - putting the decorum and honour of the house above all else - though they’re elected officials. They really shouldn’t be anything of interest ever, it’s literally a protocol role. So this guy… Even IF he was really good at his job as a member of parliament, and well liked among all parties, his career is over
I’m wondering if somebody influenced that speaker. Russian propaganda is now using this that Zelensky (who was present at the time) was clapping when that Nazi was honored.
Could just be an honest mistake, but it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be held accountable and I’m glad he has been. If I read the headline correctly I think the PM has also made a formal apology on behalf of the Canadian government as well but someone feel free to correct me on that because I didn’t quite get to reading the article.
I think the Speaker’s riding is North Bay? The way a lot of small towns / northern cities work is someone tells you “oh I know him he’s a good guy” and you just kind of take it at face value until you find out otherwise.
Now that’s not the way international protocol should work, obviously, and of course the Russians are going to use it.
I don’t necessarily believe he was “put up to it” because the simplest explanation is just Northern Ontario word of mouth gone awry and applied to an international diplomatic event where it absolutely should have been fact checked. If I recall correctly, the Speaker said it was a last minute decision.
I have a contact in the house so I can update if I hear any whisperings. My question is: is the Chief of Protocol responsible for reviewing the Speaker’s remarks. The answer could quite conceivably be no, and if so I think that process should be reviewed.
“We have here in the chamber today [a] Ukrainian Canadian world [war] veteran from the second world war who fought [for] the Ukrainian Independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today even at his age of 98.” The Canadian Prime Minister heard this man was a Nazi and then started clapping. I don’t understand how much more black and white this could be.
Yes let everyone, despite everything else going on at the time, pause in the moment to recall the finer points of WW2 geopolitics because everyone obviously has all those facts at the forefront of their mind at all times.
List of people who clapped: literally everyone.
I watched at home and didn’t clue in and I didn’t have cameras pointing at me documenting an internationally significant diplomatic event.
Yes let everyone, despite everything else going on at the time, pause in the moment to recall the finer points of WW2 geopolitics because everyone obviously has all those facts at the forefront of their mind at all times.
Bruv, bruv, this is the bare minimum, I swear. If you cannot recall that WWII was Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union, you aren’t prepared enough to have opinions on the modern conflict or any aspect of geopolitics. This isn’t the finer points.
I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith. There were more countries involved in WW2 than Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union but, as I said, I’m not an expert and I don’t expect people to be.
It was a mistake on the part of the speaker, he owned it, and then the government apologized. Case closed. Don’t be a partisan hack.
If the ‘Mhm’ didn’t make it clear, I’m not excusing people from any party. Every single person who clapped should be stripped of power and be given the choice of exile or execution. They’re either a Nazi sympathiser or conman. There is no third option. Either they are profoundly uninformed and therefore scamming the Canadian public and should be treated as traitors, or they are willing to clap for Nazis and should be treated as traitors. I appreciate that not everyone is an expert on WWII, but this doesn’t require expertise or subject knowledge. This is the most basic and important bit of information for modern geopolitics. It’s such a simple thing that I’m baffled to be talking to someone trying to imply there is any possibility that someone would not know and be able to recall at a moment’s notice.
Every single person who clapped should be stripped of power and be given the choice of exile or execution. They’re either a Nazi sympathiser or conman. There is no third option.
You are completely unhinged and need a better therapist.
Alright great, so you’ll have no problem with getting rid of all the people who clapped, and the guy they clapped for. Then we’re in complete agreement.
The speaker of the house is the defacto boss of the parliament and that’s who invited the nazi. Even if they knew the history of everyone who enters the building, the PM couldn’t have prevented the speaker from inviting this guy. Had ANYONE known this guy’s history, this wouldn’t have happened.
This is true, the speaker is by all accounts a professional and well respected man with an impeccable, non partisan service history who made one of the most gigantic individual fuck ups in our patliaments history. If anyone had known beforehand the speaker would not have let him speak.
Someone in the govt got a old Ukranian dude to speak to the parlement, and they all applauded him for fighting Russia in WW2, forgetting that the people who faught Russia in WW2 were the Nazis.
They had accidentally invited a literal Nazi to speak, and applauded him for it.
Canadian here. Minor correction: he didn’t speak, but he was invited as a Ukrainian “hero” by the speaker of the house (a member of the sitting elected party). He was applauded - twice - for his “service”. Including by Ukrainian president zelensky.
The only ‘defense’ I can offer is that our prime minister had no input on the matter, and Hunka’s Nazi service came out after the fact. Canada does not support fascism or Nazism…
I can’t tell if this is tongue in cheek, but the opposition is staying that this is exactly what should have happened before allowing the Nazi entry.
My read on this situation is that it all seems obvious after the fact, but that’s cuz now we know. I believe the vetting process is being reviewed because of this event. Definitely a gaffe on the part of the speaker, if this info is truly so readily accessible
No, that’s not it, in Canadian Parliament it is the speaker of the house who has ths sole responsibility for both inviting guests to the gallery and for recognizing them in the official remarks. Other members of the house and government weren’t even given notice the guy would be there. The speakers office arranges guest vetting, but it is only a security vetting not a political one. That is the PPS and RCMP decide if the 98 year old, legal Canadian immigrant is likely to put the house and guesses physical danger, they don’t consider at all if the guest will cause a political headache.
So the fallout is that the speaker (who in fact was solely responsible for what happened) has resigned, and the PM has offerd an official apology on behalf of all Canadians. There could be more political fallout domestically, as the opposition parties are misleading Canadians and stoking ignorance of our procedures to paint the government as responsible , which I emphasize again, they were not.
I can’t explain why governments around the world, including Canada, made a decision 60-80 years ago to allow former Nazi soldiers to relocate. I’m not an expert in that area, if you are asking a serious question may I reccomend you try books instead of random internet strangers.
I agree that silence is complicity, but that only applies if you know there’s something worth being silent about, no?
In this case, the PM had no input because the speaker doesn’t have to ask permission to invite people from his constituency. So it falls to the speaker to validate his invitees. As such, PM has no input, but also no more fault than anyone else told to clap for the “Ukrainian hero” in this scenario… Is my understanding
That’s not how our parliament works. The amount of people calling for an end to the speaker’s independence is concerning.
The speaker’s job is to uphold decorum of parliament. This one spectacularly failed to do that, and resigned as he should. That doesn’t mean we should make it a partisan position.
I never talked about parisan positions or whatever. I expect both the house and the presidents office to have staff looking into some more details about things and raising the issue with the respective position, if it could be in violation of values of the respective institution or the country in general.
That does not involve any change of authority and i struggle to imagine that there weren’t staff people raising these issues beforehand. So i think it to be more plausible that their voice was ignored by the speaker and president, or the information was deliberately not passed on to them.
Either reason, lack of background check, ignorance by the political leaders or holes in the communications chain, speak of general problems in the organization that need to be adressed. These issues are specific to organizations and it doesnt matter whether it is a political party, a governmental institution, private business or NGO.
Canada doesn’t have a president. The Speaker of the House is the top official when it comes to running Parliament. He definitely fucked up, but it was his fuck-up and he resigned because of it. I don’t think it means we have to re-write the rules for how Canada’s Parliament operates. I mean, it’s not like we actually elected a Nazi, unlike some countries.
You certainly did unknowingly imply that changes need to be made when you said that the “president’s” staff should be vetting the Speaker’s decisions. However, I understand that you aren’t familiar with how Canada’s Parliament is structured. To be clear, it is not currently the Prime Minister’s prerogative or job to vet those whom the Speaker invites to speak in Parliament.
It wasn’t acidental btw. His own granddaughter posted that he met with Zelensky and Trudeau before. Also he lived in Canada for long, all of them were one short inquiry of getting to know who he is, and that’s why they have assistants etc. Sure, the western politicians have mostly shit for brains, but not one of 300 people even said “wait a minute”.
Add comment