this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
43 points (95.7% liked)

World News

38969 readers
2473 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

At a crucial juncture of the war against Russia, President Volodymyr Zelensky has undertaken a major reshuffle of his government, insisting "new energy" in government was needed "today."

"These steps are only associated with strengthening our state in various sectors — international politics and diplomacy are no exception," he said on Sept. 4 during a press conference in Kyiv with Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris.

While lawmakers and political analysts close to the president told the Kyiv Independent the reshuffle is a way of bringing "new energy" to a tired government apparatus, those who are critical of Zelensky say it’s more about the President's Office, run by Andriy Yermak, willing to consolidate power even more.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (4 children)

But during WW2 Britain didn't hold elections. Did this turn Britain into an autocracy?

And by the way, you literally can't hold elections if the aggressor is certain to attack polling stations. The US never had this threat, neither during the Civil War nor during WW2. Not a single US city was ever attacked by an enemy nation.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Churchill led a fucking empire, and during that same time period chose to starve 4 million what would become Bengali's.

Like, I see the argument you're making, but the British fucking empire is not the example you want to use.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that does make Churchill a genocidal British imperialist but not an autocrat.

Not that that's any better - but the original comment claimed not holding elections in tines of war => autocracy.

I don't really know about other democratic nations in WW2 that suspended elections - like 3/4 of Europe had their governments dissolved and couldn't quite hold elections.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Goleta, CA. WW2

Not really a counter argument, but you're wrong about the whole not a single city bit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Not a single US city was ever attacked by an enemy nation.

Pearl Harbor has entered the chat

Also, here’s some reading material for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_military_attacks_on_United_States_territory

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Huh, that list actually has Goleta. I'm a bit surprised about that.

Good on Wikipedia.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Pearl Harbor is not a city, is it?

I've checked nearly every single link from Wikipedia in that list, there were a handful of attacks on American villages. Not a single city was ever attacked (except for maybe Washigton by the Brits) - or rather seriously attacked.

I don't really take

Casualties:

  • 1 death
  • 3 wounded
  • damaged bridge

seriously, considering that attacks on cities usually end horribly for civilians.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not a single US city was ever attacked by an enemy nation.

This is definitely an um ackushally, but the Brits did burn the capitol.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago