Well sure, when the commissar points his Tokarev at you and tell you that you will fight for the motherland, you choose the probability of dying in the red army over the certainty of dying at the regime's hands.
Except that the Ukraine was occupied by the Germans for most of the war, and the early Soviet armies were destroyed or captured.
The Ukrainians didn't fight for their love of Stalin or communism
Well duh. Almost no one 'fought for communism', not Great Russians, let alone Little Russians. Nationalism, religion, and surprisingly, support for Stalin (people rally around their leads in war even if they're rather bad).
despite the bullshit revisionist history from Russophiles.
Russophiles? Mike Johnson, is that you?
But if you think the commies were in any way good
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm throwing a party for "STALIN WAS FANTASTIC! THREE CHEERS!" Of course they were bad. Which makes it noteworthy what people decided to do when they were confronted with two extraordinarily bad regimes.
As you say, the people who were the targets of starvation and elimination sided with Stalin rather than Hitler, because as bad as Stalin was, he would only kill some of you and not all of you.
Between the soviet genocide against the Ukrainians
It was farmers who were targeted, not 'Ukrainians' - which is not a real people to begin with. Of course, that had a disparate impact on the 'Ukrainian' bread basket.
Ukrainians fucking hated Moscow and thought that Germany would be better. Which is saying a lot and is my point.
I think in the beginning, a significant portion did regard Germany as possible liberators. And if the Germans had played their hands better, they could have recruited them and used them against Stalin rather than what they did.
Well because you were making the same arguments that Russian revisionist historians and tankies have made.
OK, so you have no more arguments left, except 'RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA". The end point of any American echoing regime talking points.
Also, let's be real here. You have no idea what arguments 'historians' make, let alone 'Russia Russia Russia revisionist historians'. You don't even know any names of either, except any that you would feverishly look up. I'm not sure why you're pretending that arguments you can't refute are the product of works you don't know by people you've never heard of.
Except that the Ukraine was occupied by the Germans for most of the war, and the early Soviet armies were destroyed or captured.
Well duh. Almost no one 'fought for communism', not Great Russians, let alone Little Russians. Nationalism, religion, and surprisingly, support for Stalin (people rally around their leads in war even if they're rather bad).
Russophiles? Mike Johnson, is that you?
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm throwing a party for "STALIN WAS FANTASTIC! THREE CHEERS!" Of course they were bad. Which makes it noteworthy what people decided to do when they were confronted with two extraordinarily bad regimes.
As you say, the people who were the targets of starvation and elimination sided with Stalin rather than Hitler, because as bad as Stalin was, he would only kill some of you and not all of you.
It was farmers who were targeted, not 'Ukrainians' - which is not a real people to begin with. Of course, that had a disparate impact on the 'Ukrainian' bread basket.
I think in the beginning, a significant portion did regard Germany as possible liberators. And if the Germans had played their hands better, they could have recruited them and used them against Stalin rather than what they did.
Well because you were making the same arguments that Russian revisionist historians and tankies have made.
OK, so you have no more arguments left, except 'RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA". The end point of any American echoing regime talking points.
Also, let's be real here. You have no idea what arguments 'historians' make, let alone 'Russia Russia Russia revisionist historians'. You don't even know any names of either, except any that you would feverishly look up. I'm not sure why you're pretending that arguments you can't refute are the product of works you don't know by people you've never heard of.