RIP Shinzo Abe
If you're a nationalist you get shot, is the message. Expect things to get really fucking awful from now on
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
I disagree. I do not see why a governor appointed to the Crown would have to be 'loyal' to a state made up on the spot. It makes far more sense to remain loyal to the Crown.
The Robert E. Lee analogy is far more apt, because there you see a far clearer case of dual loyalty to states he recognized - his own state, as well as the central state.
You keep saying that, without accounting for the fact that this was because he fled for his life and dropped power on the floor as it were.
So why did he make a peace agreement the very day before?
I mean, history vindicated Lenin's peace deal. It was a delusion to think that they were capable of continue fighting, and the Bolsheviks came to power promising 'peace' anyway. And they retook all the lost lands anyway, except Poland.
As for Petain, it's probably the only way out for Ukraine - except that the East will not be administered by the rump Ukrainian state.
After violently driving out the elected President. 'Parliament' only ratified a fait accompli - and then miraculously appointed Victoria Nuland's candidate for PM.
Lee fought in war, and even when he surrendered he didn't abandon his men and take Confedete treasure with him to Mexico or whatever.
It's more like, I don't know, Idi Amin fleeing to Saudi Arabia, except Amin first did escape several assassination attempts and also a lot of his people (including by the ethnic meaning of this word) have been killed as the regime collapsed. So this too not quite.
There was this famous American traitor general who defected to the Brits, except he continued to fight, just for them then. He was the one who defended Bunker Hill, the very battle from the American anthem.
He didn't flee for his fucking life. He fled for his liberty and wealth.
Poland, Baltic States, Finland, half of Ukraine, half of Belarus, the fuck you talk about? Dude.
Yatseniuk was Yankuvitch's own candidate.
That's fine, but I'm talking about what makes someone a traitor or not. Those who think his primary loyalty should be to the state, think he is not a traitor, those who think it should have been to the US, think he is. So like I said, it is in the eye of the beholder.
The difference between that guy and a royal governor is that he first joined the revolutionaries and then attempted to betray them.
But why did he not do that the day before? Why had he just concluded a peace treaty then?
My point is, this was clearly superior to the alternative of fighting on. They regained all the lands, save Finland, ultimately. It's not as if they were holding most of these lands at the time - they'd have to be reconquered from the Germans even if they had continued the war. That would not have happened, they'd have continued to bleed and St. Petersburg probably would have fallen.
Now, I think Brest-Litovsk led to the Russian Civil War and vastly greater suffering than World War I for the Russians - though there may have been one regardless. Was it worth it for the Bolshies? I think so. It's easier to recruit peasants promising them land against the Whites who were supposedly going to reinstate the landholders, rather than against the Germans. They were also a far less formidable enemy.
But he was gone, and had no power. He was the American candidate now.
They didn't even impeach him until he vanished (fled and left all of his supporters as confused as you appear to be).
There was no any Poland under either Russian nor German rule, and Poland didn't declare independence for the next half year or so (the Central Powers collapse).