The comments on the Scripta blog — written under the username “riikka” — include multiple uses of the Finnish equivalent of the n-word as well as other racial slurs, anti-immigrant rhetoric and apparent threats of violence. The texts use racist expressions such as “mocha dicks” and “Turkish monkeys”.
On 25 August 2008, “riikka” wrote: “Greetings from Barcelona. There is no “alarming immigration problem” to be seen here. N-word sell pirated Vuittons on Las Ramblas, scarves are hidden and each stays with their own.”
On 25 September 2008, “riikka” wrote about a confrontation on a train with young people from an immigrant background, saying “If they gave me a gun, there’d be bodies on a commuter train, you see.”
Is that so?
…
I’ll say this: if part of the requirement of “getting support against the other fascists coming over” is to supply volunteers to kill Jews, it’s not excusable in the least. It’s completely unacceptable.
Yes. It’s very probable that war crimes did happen as they happen with every country in a war. Nobody in their sound mind is proud of that alliance
In the present day it’s very important to remove all fascists from power
Even you recognized the issues Ukraine has with neo-nazis even though they’re in a better ethical position defending against the invader. Even there are war crimes which need to be sorted after the situation
So many weasel words. It’s not just “very probable”, Finland’s own government published and stands by a multi-hundred page report documented how it did happen. Also, not every country was offering up volunteers to help murder Jews, so don’t make this “all sides” junk claim.
Also, you glossed over the key point I made: if the cost to get protection from what you perceive as an invading threat is to offer up volunteers to kill Jews, you are completely in the wrong for accepting that protection. That is not a fair trade-off to make.
You’re reading into something that isn’t there with the “weaselness” — I’m very opposed to the world war alliance (and any atrocities btw if that needs reinstating) but understand the shitty circumstances. If you’re anxious about me setting a tone to speak of all situations generally, that’s on you.
And I do see the agenda you’re set on.
The weaseliness comes from the fact that you took what definitely did happen and phrased it as “probably happened”. You also took what one country definitely did, and tacked on a “well most countries were doing bad things” immediately after. That’s what is bothering me. It’s the whole “well it might not have happened, and if it did, they weren’t the only ones, and even if they were, it was a necessary evil” goalpost shifting.
By “understand the shitty circumstances” you’re seemingly saying that it made sense to make the alliance. But you’re, once again, ignoring my point: if the cost of that alliance is that you must provide volunteers to kill Jews, you are in the wrong.
Please, enlighten me. The only agenda I have here is to call out the minimizing of Nazi-collaboration that happened, including the murder of Jews, as some sort of “necessary evil” alliance.
I did already understand your reasoning earlier. It’s just that you’re very heavy on setting your thoughts be my thoughts, which I’m usually averse to. I hope you can eventually separate those two.
If you do know which other possible alliance would have been possible, I’m sure Finland’s historians would love to hear that.
You can check out “The log boat theory” at the end of this article. The beginning is also interesting for the background if you’re not in a hurry. It’s a reasonable take. Actually has some rhymes to current European situations. Most of the nazis are in the Russian invaders this time.