Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "By this law, the Ukranians should have rallied round Stalin when Hitler attacked. Didn't happen."
The USSR was run by an administration that was fundamentally foreign to the Ukraine. Here's what the CIA says about the Ukraine (which, for God's sake, is now not even in the same country as Moscow, LOL):
Ethnic groups: Ukrainian 73%, Russian 22%, Jewish 1%, other 4%
...
Languages: Ukrainian, Russian, Romanian, Polish, Hungarian
cia.gov
The above is after the Russians colonized the place for another 50 years, the numbers of Ukrainians were undoubtedly higher back in the early 1940s. So when the Germans came, the locals saw a chance to gain independence as a neutral nation. This did not apply to the Russians, and they fought back against Hitler, and, importantly for my case, they lionized Stalin as a f'ing hero.
Note that I explicitly called out an exception for "foreign installed" authoritarian regimes. Now you know why. The Ukraine was a colony of the Russians, it's "liberation" by the Germans doesn't count. The fact that the locals were wrong in their belief that the Germans would be better than the Russians has nothing to do with it. If the Ukraine had been a part of a Ukrainian authoritarian regime, they would have fought back harder.
Afghanistan under the mostly Arab Taliban is another example of a "foreign" regime, which is why I made an exception to this rule for that case. (See #reply-16509264 )
So go find another example. With your extensive knowledge of history you are surely aware of many other cases. And I don't doubt that those cases exist.
Maybe Cambodia under Pol Pot would be a counter example. But rules for human behavior are never 100%, and the Pol Pot regime was infamous for a level of cruelty that set records. So here's a question for you:
When the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in order to oust Pol Pot, did the Cambodians rally around Pol Pot, or did they shoot back at the Vietnamese soldiers?
-- Carl |
