Chernobyl on HBO
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
How does that change the point? |
Anonymous
|
NP here and I'm sort of skimming all this because I have only watched the first episode and there are lots of spoilers on this thread.
But I wanted to say (I don't think it's been said) that I recall Time or Life magazine doing a photo spread, maybe 10 years after the accident, where they showed a bunch of animals, born to animals that lived near Chernobyl, that were deformed. I recall a man holding a foal with six legs. At the time, all I was thinking was, "ok, if all these farm animals are being born with deformities, what about the human babies?" And I still wonder that; wonder how could they NOT be born with deformities and probably hidden away and killed, as the cover-up continued. I'll do a search for that; it was a mainstream magazine and in the supermarket check out line. |
Anonymous
And the man in charge was a deranged, abusive, lunatic under pressure from a dishonest, ego-driven government. This was a masterclass in bad management and leadership. |
Anonymous
What do you think happened to French colons in Algeria in 1962, which had a govt supported by the USSR? To Jews throughout the mideast, to South Asians in east africa, etc. Decolonization is unpleasant to both colonisers, and minorities who had been under the protection of colonial authorities. USSR never worried about that though. Note, all the citations are to problems in central asia - not to the Baltics, whose independence and sovereignty are most challenged by Russia now - the central asian countries get along politically with Putin though. |
Anonymous
| Why does everyone talk with an English accent in the show? |
Anonymous
Yeah! And why are they are talking in English, not Russian? What a minute! - do you think these people might just be actors, pretending to be the people they are portraying? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juzy2YVQgw8 |
Anonymous
It doesn't just feels kind of like plagiarism if you don't comment something more like, "the first comment under the article says they should have made a movie called Flint, an apt observation" or whatever. |
Anonymous
Clear cultural appropriation. Speaking of which, are you English 
|
Anonymous
Yes, pp, you know why such treatment? Because Stalin never signed the pow Red Cross agreement at the time. You know it wasn’t signed? Because “Soviet soldiers don’t become prisoners of war”. The orders were to be killer but not surrender. PoW were regarded by soviet regime as traitors. Living on nazi occupied territories at the time also wa seen not as bad, but definitely a black spot. Read more history before spewing nonsense. |
Anonymous
|
An article sifting through what’s true and what was exaggerated in the film:
Chornobyl”: what’s true and what’s fiction in the popular miniseries http://uacrisis.org/72194-chornobyl-s-true-s-fiction-popular-miniseries |
Anonymous
First, Azerbaijan isn't in Central Asia. Second, if you think local Russians in the Baltic republics did not experience discrimination and disenfranchisement, you aren't paying attention. |
Anonymous
Oh my little history buff. What will you argue next? That Hitler set up ghettos because the Jews of Lithuania or Poland didn't join, I dunno, an Slumlord Regulation Treaty? Idiot. Let's dispense with your nonsense. "The Allied regulars kept by Germany were usually treated in accordance with the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. Although the Soviet Union was not a signatory, Germany was, and Article 82 of the Convention required signatories to treat all captured enemy soldiers "as between the belligerents who are parties thereto." Russenlager conditions were often even worse than those commonly experienced by prisoners in regular concentration camps. " You understand what that means, yes? States that signed the convention undertake the obligation of humane treatment toward ALL enemy soldiers. Not only the ones from the signatory states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mistreatment_of_Soviet_prisoners_of_war But don't listen to me, let's listen to the Holocaust Museum: "From the very beginning, German policy on the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war (POWs) was determined by Nazi ideology. German political and military leaders regarded Soviet POWs not only as racially less valuable but as potential enemies, obstacles in the German conquest of "living space." The Nazi regime claimed that it was under no obligation for the humane care of prisoners of war from the Red Army because the Soviet Union had not ratified the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, nor had it specifically declared its commitment to the 1907 Hague Convention on the Rules of War. Technically both nations, therefore, were bound only by the general international law of war as it had developed in modern times. Yet even under that law, prisoners of war were to be protected." https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-treatment-of-soviet-pows-starvation-disease-and-shootings-june-1941january-1942 Soviet prisoners of war were the first victims of the Nazi policy of mass starvation in the east. In August 1941, the German army set a ration of just 2,200 calories per day for working Soviet prisoners of war. Even this was not enough to sustain life for long, but in practice the POWs received much less than the official ration. Many Soviet prisoners of war received at most a ration of only 700 calories a day. Within a few weeks the result of this "subsistence" ration, as the German army termed it, was death by starvation. The POWs were often provided, for example, only special "Russian" bread made from sugar beet husks and straw flour. Executions The executions did not take place in the prisoner-of-war camps or their immediate area. Instead, prisoners were transferred to a secure area and shot. The concentration camps proved an ideal location for executions. In Gross-Rosen concentration camp, for example, the SS killed more than 65,000 Soviet POWS by feeding them only a thin soup of grass, water, and salt for six months. In Flossenbürg, SS men burned Soviet POWs alive. In Majdanek, they shot them in trenches. In Mauthausen, Austria, so many POWs were shot that the local population complained that their water supply had been contaminated. The rivers and streams near the camp ran red with blood. Estimates of the numbers of victims of this operation range from at least 140,000 up to 500,000. Killing Centers The Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek camps had originally been constructed for the Soviet POWs that Heinrich Himmler had claimed for himself. The POWs were to be put to work in the huge industrial conglomerates that the SS was planning to set up together with firms such as I.G. Farben. But in January 1942, only a few hundred of the Soviet prisoners who had originally been brought to Auschwitz—out of a total of 10,000—were still alive, and no further influx was expected. For this reason Himmler decided, in the week following the Wannsee Conference, to fill the camps with 150,000 Jews. In this manner the SS camps for POWs became part of the infrastructure for the murder of the Jews. It was when dealing with Soviet POWs at Auschwitz that camp commandant Rudolf Hoess and his assistants experimented with the means of killing that has since become the symbol of Nazi genocide: Zyklon B. In early September 1941, 600 Soviet POWs were selected for execution. Hoess decided to gas them with Zyklon B, also known as hydrogen cyanide, in the Auschwitz I gas chamber. The experimental gassing here also included 250 inmates who had been designated unfit for work. The Nazis had already experimented with gassing as the means to kill people they considered disabled beginning in October 1939. A method was thereby found that would kill millions of people with minimal effort. Those lessons were subsequently applied first to Soviet POWs and then to Jews. By February 1942, 2,000,000 of the 3,300,000 Soviet soldiers in German custody up to that point had died from starvation, exposure, disease, or shooting. But please, do go on and argue that all of that happened because that bad dude Stalin didn't sign the Geneva convention. If only he did! Then his POWs would have received chocolate profiteroles and bedtime stories instead of grass soup and trench shootings. Moron. |
Anonymous
|
for your reading pleasure pp:
www.rferl.org/amp/29217414.html |
Anonymous
Anonymous
You're saying it's OK to starve, gas and shoot people down in trenches and concentration camps if it seems like their home government might not support them afterwards? That's totally good to know. I'll keep that in mind for my next war. Let's end with this quote from your own link, dumbass: "Of course, the entire responsibility for the mass deaths of Soviet prisoners must fall on the leadership of the Third Reich," he added. "But Stalin's government, in my opinion, was guilty of not giving moral support or material assistance to its own soldiers, who were simply abandoned." You're probably one of the dimwit navel-gazers who say, hey, Stalin should have totally surrendered Leningrad, then people would not have starved to death! |