Ukraine blocks Russian propaganda.

[Esperantujo 2]

Ukraine has a complex and tragic history, and a tragic present. A number of small statelets were united together when the Red Army defeated Wrangel while western Ukraine was taken over by Poland. Lenin encouraged the Ukrainian language while Stalin tended to reverse this in favour of Russian, and was rightly blamed for the famine caused by his hamfisted agricultural policies from 1929 onwards. During World War 2, many Ukrainian nationalists supported Hitler. It is this which the Poroshenko regime tries to conceal, together with the positive role which the Bolsheviks played in creating Ukraine. After the war, the Western area around Lviv and the Carpathians joined Ukraine from Poland and Hungary. And finally as has been said Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine. Crimea was Russian partly because of Stalin's deportation of the Tartars.
I'm suspicious about how closely the 2014 coup followed Russia's granting of political asylum to Edward Snowden. Because Obama's Democrats were in power at the time, that explains why the Democrats, even including Bernie Sanders, are on Poroshenko's side. In Europe the situation is somewhat different. Far right parties are anti-EU and left parties are anti-fascist so they are both against Poroshenko, while centre-right and centre parties are generally pro-Poroshenko and anti-Putin. Probably in the beginning the Kiev protesters were genuinely pro-EU and anti-corruption but Maidan Square gradually came under control of the armed Neo-Nazi terrorist group Pravy Sektor. After the coup, on 2nd May this group burned alive over 40 Russian speakers at the Odessa Trade Union Centre. Instead of arresting them and banning their organisation, the regime incorporated them in the National Guard and sent them into the Donbass. The regime's argument against the referenda in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk was not so much that the results were incorrect but that no part of Ukraine territory had right of self-determination because Ukraine had given up "its nuclear weapons" on the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Yanokovich government of the Party of the Regions and the Communist Party although corrupt was relatively liberal, particularly in respect to language, where all regional languages were recognised. The Poroshenko regime abolished the language law and is attempting to impose Ukrainian on a country where about a third of the population have Russian as a native language. I favour referenda to decide the future of every part of the Ukraine, but only after the restoration of democracy. The Putin regime is an autocratic conservative regime but the Poroshenko regime is a totalitarian fascist one.

[Shofercia]

That was in response to someone equating the Federation occupation of Crimea to the Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland in a negative light. Though the Polish were treated pretty poorly under Soviet rule, Crimeans are unlikely to be too ruffled by anything Putin does to them, plus the Crimean public at large appears to support and probably does support this annexation. Time will tell if that continues to hold true though. With Ukraine's current corruption, bitterness, and instability the chances don't seem to be good, but stranger things have happened.

The Katyn Massacre seems odd to bring up considering it involved a limited number of officers, police, and agents. It did sway public opinion significantly, but you're misrepresenting what happened by basically saying the Soviets wanted to wipe out the Polish just as bad as the Nazis did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_re ... %80%931946)
Quite frankly the Soviet repression of Poland was almost as bad as the Nazi repression of Poland, if not nearly equal, 100,000 jailed, a forced deportation of nearly a million Polish citizens to the middle of Siberia, executions, suppression, really the Soviets and Nazis seemed to have an equal belief that Poles were subhuman scum who didn't deserve anything.

Quite frankly it was not. Nazis murdered 3,000,000 Jews, most of whom were probably Polish Citizens. And Slavs were next on Nazi kill list. So no, it wasn't even close. And Soviets didn't believe that Poles were subhumans either. Rokkosovski, who rose through the ranks of the Red Army, was a Pole, and everyone knew it. Temkin, a Polish Jew, wrote about his treatment under Soviets and Nazis, in a book titled My Just War. There's really not shortage of writing by Poles from that time period, but they're not the ones being quoted, because that doesn't fit the propaganda. While Katyn was a travesty, equating that to the extermination of millions, is going overboard with propaganda.

Did Poland deserve independence from the Warsaw Pact? Absolutely. Were Soviets much better than Nazis? Absolutely.

Ukraine has a complex and tragic history, and a tragic present. A number of small statelets were united together when the Red Army defeated Wrangel while western Ukraine was taken over by Poland. Lenin encouraged the Ukrainian language while Stalin tended to reverse this in favour of Russian, and was rightly blamed for the famine caused by his hamfisted agricultural policies from 1929 onwards. During World War 2, many Ukrainian nationalists supported Hitler. It is this which the Poroshenko regime tries to conceal, together with the positive role which the Bolsheviks played in creating Ukraine. After the war, the Western area around Lviv and the Carpathians joined Ukraine from Poland and Hungary. And finally as has been said Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine. Crimea was Russian partly because of Stalin's deportation of the Tartars.

I'm suspicious about how closely the 2014 coup followed Russia's granting of political asylum to Edward Snowden. Because Obama's Democrats were in power at the time, that explains why the Democrats, even including Bernie Sanders, are on Poroshenko's side. In Europe the situation is somewhat different. Far right parties are anti-EU and left parties are anti-fascist so they are both against Poroshenko, while centre-right and centre parties are generally pro-Poroshenko and anti-Putin. Probably in the beginning the Kiev protesters were genuinely pro-EU and anti-corruption but Maidan Square gradually came under control of the armed Neo-Nazi terrorist group Pravy Sektor. After the coup, on 2nd May this group burned alive over 40 Russian speakers at the Odessa Trade Union Centre. Instead of arresting them and banning their organisation, the regime incorporated them in the National Guard and sent them into the Donbass.

The regime's argument against the referenda in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk was not so much that the results were incorrect but that no part of Ukraine territory had right of self-determination because Ukraine had given up "its nuclear weapons" on the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Yanokovich government of the Party of the Regions and the Communist Party although corrupt was relatively liberal, particularly in respect to language, where all regional languages were recognised. The Poroshenko regime abolished the language law and is attempting to impose Ukrainian on a country where about a third of the population have Russian as a native language. I favour referenda to decide the future of every part of the Ukraine, but only after the restoration of democracy. The Putin regime is an autocratic conservative regime but the Poroshenko regime is a totalitarian fascist one.

While I agree that the UN mandated and UN Peacekeeping Observed Referendums, Oblast by Oblast, is the only think that can somehow save some semblance of Ukraine, and that they should be internationally observed, I doubt that Crimea was Russian partly because of the deportation of Crimea Tatars. Crimea's shores, (part of Tmutarakhan Area,) is mentioned in Russian History Books as early as the tenth/eleventh centuries, ruled by Mstislav the Brave, the best Russian General during his lifetime, arguably one of the World's best at the time.

Then the Mongols came, Crimea was lost along with quite a bit of other Russian Lands. Mongols displacing Russians in Crimea happened at the time. In 1480 Russians won the War against Mongols, and the Russian Empire expanded. During the time of Catherine the Great, Crimea became a part of the Russian Empire, and it's been de facto Russian ever since. According to the 1926 census, the Russians had a plurality in Crimea, and this was before the deportation.

[Constantinopolis]

The most amazing thing about all this (and the entire last 3 years) is how much of a collapse in living standards the Ukrainians are willing to put up with, in the name of nationalism.

The Ukrainian economy is in tatters, jobs are hard to find, people are leaving the country in droves, social services are barely functioning, the government is just as corrupt (if not more so) than before Maidan, and now the government is blocking their email and social media too. And why? Because fuck Russia, glory to Ukraine!!! That's why.

I'm honestly curious to see how long this can last. I'm surprised the Ukrainian state hasn't collapsed already.

[Genivaria]

The most amazing thing about all this (and the entire last 3 years) is how much of a collapse in living standards the Ukrainians are willing to put up with, in the name of nationalism.

The Ukrainian economy is in tatters, jobs are hard to find, people are leaving the country in droves, social services are barely functioning, the government is just as corrupt (if not more so) than before Maidan, and now the government is blocking their email and social media too. And why? Because fuck Russia, glory to Ukraine!!! That's why.

I'm honestly curious to see how long this can last. I'm surprised the Ukrainian state hasn't collapsed already.

What alot of people don't seem to realize is that even if you're opposed to a shity government or ideology that doesn't actually automatically make you any better.
Two rabidly over-zealous nationalists aren't automatically friends.

[Constantinopolis]

[Shofercia]

The most amazing thing about all this (and the entire last 3 years) is how much of a collapse in living standards the Ukrainians are willing to put up with, in the name of nationalism.

The Ukrainian economy is in tatters, jobs are hard to find, people are leaving the country in droves, social services are barely functioning, the government is just as corrupt (if not more so) than before Maidan, and now the government is blocking their email and social media too. And why? Because fuck Russia, glory to Ukraine!!! That's why.

I'm honestly curious to see how long this can last. I'm surprised the Ukrainian state hasn't collapsed already.

What alot of people don't seem to realize is that even if you're opposed to a shity government or ideology that doesn't actually automatically make you any better.
Two rabidly over-zealous nationalists aren't automatically friends.

What Const is pointing out, is that you should think, (general you, not specifically you,) before acting. How many cheered for the fall of Yanukovich the Inept? And what happened in the vacuum? Poroshenko the Alcoholic. How many cheered for the fall of Saddam? What happened in the vacuum? ISIS. How many cheered for the fall of Ghadaffi? What happened in the vacuum? You get the idea. If you want to topple "shitty" leaders - do so, as long as you have a plan as to what happens afterwards. Not just hopes and dreams, but an actual plan of action.

[San Marlindo]

What alot of people don't seem to realize is that even if you're opposed to a shity government or ideology that doesn't actually automatically make you any better.
Two rabidly over-zealous nationalists aren't automatically friends.

What Const is pointing out, is that you should think, (general you, not specifically you,) before acting. How many cheered for the fall of Yanukovich the Inept? And what happened in the vacuum? Poroshenko the Alcoholic. How many cheered for the fall of Saddam? What happened in the vacuum? ISIS. How many cheered for the fall of Ghadaffi? What happened in the vacuum? You get the idea. If you want to topple "shitty" leaders - do so, as long as you have a plan as to what happens afterwards. Not just hopes and dreams, but an actual plan of action.

Something really odd about the fall of Saddam and Gadaffi is that droves of people cheered when they fell, then after they fell droves of people cheered for them posthumously....including a few of the same individuals.

2003: "Saddam is an evil dictator who needs to be deposed for trampling all over his own people, he must be ousted! He gassed the Kurds and Swamp Arabs, murdered his political opponents, and destabilized the Middle East!"

2006: "Saddam is a hero for standing up against radical Islamism and the West! Under his rule Iraq had a stable secular government! He gave the Iraqis healthcare and infrastructure and kept Iraq stabilized!"

Then, in 2011: "Gadaffi is an evil dictator who mercilessly slaughters his own civilians, thank God he is being ousted by The Libyan People, who finally had enough!"

2012: "Under Gadaffi Libya had the second highest standard of living in North Africa, and everybody had amazing healthcare and infrastructure. His only crime was standing up to the West, he is a true hero of The Libyan People!"

I posted in a thread in 2011 about NSG's opinions concerning Gadaffi. When I asked why everybody was jumping on a bandwagon to hate on him, I was told almost unanimously that he was getting his just desserts. People counted the few votes for Gadaffi in the thread poll and called the users who made them all manner of idiotic names.

In 2013 I posted in a very similar thread on the same topic. When I asked what people thought about Gadaffi the majority of users were quick to point out all the supposedly amazing things he did for the Libyan people in terms of promoting equality, building infrastructure, investing in high standards of education and healthcare, etc. Almost nobody was sympathetic to the NATO effort to topple him. I was stunned by the fact that some of the same users who criticized me so harshly in 2011 for asking why people hated him were now his staunchest proponents.

Gotta love fickle yet incredibly opinionated NSers and the power of 20/20 hindsight.

[Internationalist Bastard]

What Const is pointing out, is that you should think, (general you, not specifically you,) before acting. How many cheered for the fall of Yanukovich the Inept? And what happened in the vacuum? Poroshenko the Alcoholic. How many cheered for the fall of Saddam? What happened in the vacuum? ISIS. How many cheered for the fall of Ghadaffi? What happened in the vacuum? You get the idea. If you want to topple "shitty" leaders - do so, as long as you have a plan as to what happens afterwards. Not just hopes and dreams, but an actual plan of action.

Something really odd about the fall of Saddam and Gadaffi is that droves of people cheered when they fell, then after they fell droves of people cheered for them posthumously....including a few of the same individuals.

2003: "Saddam is an evil dictator who needs to be deposed for trampling all over his own people, he must be ousted! He gassed the Kurds and Swamp Arabs, murdered his political opponents, and destabilized the Middle East!"

2006: "Saddam is a hero for standing up against radical Islamism and the West! Under his rule Iraq had a stable secular government! He gave the Iraqis healthcare and infrastructure and kept Iraq stabilized!"

Then, in 2011: "Gadaffi is an evil dictator who mercilessly slaughters his own civilians, thank God he is being ousted by The Libyan People, who finally had enough!"

2012: "Under Gadaffi Libya had the second highest standard of living in North Africa, and everybody had amazing healthcare and infrastructure. His only crime was standing up to the West, he is a true hero of The Libyan People!"

I posted in a thread in 2011 about NSG's opinions concerning Gadaffi. When I asked why everybody was jumping on a bandwagon to hate on him, I was told almost unanimously that he was getting his just desserts. People counted the few votes for Gadaffi in the thread poll and called the users who made them all manner of idiotic names.

In 2013 I posted in a very similar thread on the same topic. When I asked what people thought about Gadaffi the majority of users were quick to point out all the supposedly amazing things he did for the Libyan people in terms of promoting equality, building infrastructure, investing in high standards of education and healthcare, etc. Almost nobody was sympathetic to the NATO effort to topple him. I was stunned by the fact that some of the same users who criticized me so harshly in 2011 for asking why people hated him were now his staunchest proponents.

Gotta love fickle yet incredibly opinionated NSers and the power of 20/20 hindsight.

Which is why I work hard to stay consistent and hate dictators regardless

[Shofercia]

What Const is pointing out, is that you should think, (general you, not specifically you,) before acting. How many cheered for the fall of Yanukovich the Inept? And what happened in the vacuum? Poroshenko the Alcoholic. How many cheered for the fall of Saddam? What happened in the vacuum? ISIS. How many cheered for the fall of Ghadaffi? What happened in the vacuum? You get the idea. If you want to topple "shitty" leaders - do so, as long as you have a plan as to what happens afterwards. Not just hopes and dreams, but an actual plan of action.

Something really odd about the fall of Saddam and Gadaffi is that droves of people cheered when they fell, then after they fell droves of people cheered for them posthumously....including a few of the same individuals.

2003: "Saddam is an evil dictator who needs to be deposed for trampling all over his own people, he must be ousted! He gassed the Kurds and Swamp Arabs, murdered his political opponents, and destabilized the Middle East!"

2006: "Saddam is a hero for standing up against radical Islamism and the West! Under his rule Iraq had a stable secular government! He gave the Iraqis healthcare and infrastructure and kept Iraq stabilized!"

Then, in 2011: "Gadaffi is an evil dictator who mercilessly slaughters his own civilians, thank God he is being ousted by The Libyan People, who finally had enough!"

2012: "Under Gadaffi Libya had the second highest standard of living in North Africa, and everybody had amazing healthcare and infrastructure. His only crime was standing up to the West, he is a true hero of The Libyan People!"

I posted in a thread in 2011 about NSG's opinions concerning Gadaffi. When I asked why everybody was jumping on a bandwagon to hate on him, I was told almost unanimously that he was getting his just desserts. People counted the few votes for Gadaffi in the thread poll and called the users who made them all manner of idiotic names.

In 2013 I posted in a very similar thread on the same topic. When I asked what people thought about Gadaffi the majority of users were quick to point out all the supposedly amazing things he did for the Libyan people in terms of promoting equality, building infrastructure, investing in high standards of education and healthcare, etc. Almost nobody was sympathetic to the NATO effort to topple him. I was stunned by the fact that some of the same users who criticized me so harshly in 2011 for asking why people hated him were now his staunchest proponents.

Gotta love fickle yet incredibly opinionated NSers and the power of 20/20 hindsight.

I was against toppling Saddam and Muammar from the get go. It would've been much smarter to focus on Afghanistan, and build a strong center of US power projection there, than it was to wander into Iraq and... but yeah, I agree with you for the most part.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Something really odd about the fall of Saddam and Gadaffi is that droves of people cheered when they fell, then after they fell droves of people cheered for them posthumously....including a few of the same individuals.

2003: "Saddam is an evil dictator who needs to be deposed for trampling all over his own people, he must be ousted! He gassed the Kurds and Swamp Arabs, murdered his political opponents, and destabilized the Middle East!"

2006: "Saddam is a hero for standing up against radical Islamism and the West! Under his rule Iraq had a stable secular government! He gave the Iraqis healthcare and infrastructure and kept Iraq stabilized!"

Then, in 2011: "Gadaffi is an evil dictator who mercilessly slaughters his own civilians, thank God he is being ousted by The Libyan People, who finally had enough!"

2012: "Under Gadaffi Libya had the second highest standard of living in North Africa, and everybody had amazing healthcare and infrastructure. His only crime was standing up to the West, he is a true hero of The Libyan People!"

I posted in a thread in 2011 about NSG's opinions concerning Gadaffi. When I asked why everybody was jumping on a bandwagon to hate on him, I was told almost unanimously that he was getting his just desserts. People counted the few votes for Gadaffi in the thread poll and called the users who made them all manner of idiotic names.

In 2013 I posted in a very similar thread on the same topic. When I asked what people thought about Gadaffi the majority of users were quick to point out all the supposedly amazing things he did for the Libyan people in terms of promoting equality, building infrastructure, investing in high standards of education and healthcare, etc. Almost nobody was sympathetic to the NATO effort to topple him. I was stunned by the fact that some of the same users who criticized me so harshly in 2011 for asking why people hated him were now his staunchest proponents.

Gotta love fickle yet incredibly opinionated NSers and the power of 20/20 hindsight.

Which is why I work hard to stay consistent and hate dictators regardless

But why should you hate dictators regardless of what they have done? History is filled with dictators who have done great things for their constituents and even a few who saved their country from certain destruction (Q. Fabius Maximus).

[Bheothachadh]

Which is why I work hard to stay consistent and hate dictators regardless

But why should you hate dictators regardless of what they have done? History is filled with dictators who have done great things for their constituents and even a few who saved their country from certain destruction (Q. Fabius Maximus).

muh freedum and democracy uhhhhhhhh
There's no real reason to hate dictatorships unless you're a liberal who thinks freedom is a deserved/real thing.

[Constantinopolis]

But why should you hate dictators regardless of what they have done? History is filled with dictators who have done great things for their constituents and even a few who saved their country from certain destruction (Q. Fabius Maximus).

muh freedum and democracy uhhhhhhhh
There's no real reason to hate dictatorships unless you're a liberal who thinks freedom is a deserved/real thing.

Even then, it's utterly stupid to hate all dictators equally, without discrimination. Some dictators are better than the alternative. Some dictatorships are necessary.

I actually support democracy, but I find myself having to defend dictators on NSG all the time against starry-eyed idealists who don't understand that sometimes a dictatorship can be the lesser evil.

[Polvamaa]

Russia, compared to the west is one of the most fanatic nations in the world. They want to greb more and more land to free the "opressed russian minority" who were sent to the lands were they are by the USSR itself. They are very, very fanatic as evidenced in Estonia during the bronze soldier controversy (No controversy, a full on riot.), when the removal of a monument that portrayed murderers and kidnappers of Estonian people as heroes. The russian goverment claim no responsibility for the actions of the USSR. I say Go Ukraine for doing this.

[Constantinopolis]

Russia, compared to the west is one of the most fanatic nations in the world. They want to greb more and more land to free the "opressed russian minority" who were sent to the lands were they are by the USSR itself.

Most of those lands used to be part of Russia for about 300 years. Remember, Tsarist Russia was bigger than the USSR. Russia was at its greatest territorial extent in 1914. Then it lost some land due to WW1 and the Revolution, then the USSR took back most of that land after WW2, and then Russia lost it again with the fall of the USSR.

So, from the Russian point of view, what happened was that some historical regions of Russia broke off and started acting intensely anti-Russian. Imagine if a part of your country that has a different culture from the rest of the country decides to break off, and then says that it was occupied by you during all that time when you lived in the same country and that you are evil and all the people who share your culture don't belong there.

[Thermodolia]

muh freedum and democracy uhhhhhhhh
There's no real reason to hate dictatorships unless you're a liberal who thinks freedom is a deserved/real thing.

Even then, it's utterly stupid to hate all dictators equally, without discrimination. Some dictators are better than the alternative. Some dictatorships are necessary.

I actually support democracy, but I find myself having to defend dictators on NSG all the time against starry-eyed idealists who don't understand that sometimes a dictatorship can be the lesser evil.

Franco is one of those.

[Constantinopolis]

Even then, it's utterly stupid to hate all dictators equally, without discrimination. Some dictators are better than the alternative. Some dictatorships are necessary.

I actually support democracy, but I find myself having to defend dictators on NSG all the time against starry-eyed idealists who don't understand that sometimes a dictatorship can be the lesser evil.

Franco is one of those.

Franco...? I don't think so. But regardless, the general point stands, though we may disagree about individual cases.

[Thermodolia]

Franco is one of those.

Franco...? I don't think so. But regardless, the general point stands, though we may disagree about individual cases.

Maybe I'm misspelling his name but he did keep Spain out of WWII

[Zemljoslav Republic]

Maybe I'm misspelling his name but he did keep Spain out of WWII

Its not that he kept Spain out of WW2, it is that Spain had a 1936-1939 civil war, and could barely have fought if it could. Franco was the leader of the fascists during the civil war, and his side won.

[Thermodolia]

Maybe I'm misspelling his name but he did keep Spain out of WWII

Its not that he kept Spain out of WW2, it is that Spain had a 1936-1939 civil war, and could barely have fought if it could. Franco was the leader of the fascists during the civil war, and his side won.

Yes I know that

[Zemljoslav Republic]

Yes I know that

Sorry, I thought that you thought that Franco purposely made Spain neutral as if he was helping the Spanish people. (On NS forums, I can't know whether somebody knows or doesn't know about history)

[New Pantuxia]

"Russian propaganda" lmao

[Polvamaa]

Russia, compared to the west is one of the most fanatic nations in the world. They want to greb more and more land to free the "opressed russian minority" who were sent to the lands were they are by the USSR itself.

Most of those lands used to be part of Russia for about 300 years. Remember, Tsarist Russia was bigger than the USSR. Russia was at its greatest territorial extent in 1914. Then it lost some land due to WW1 and the Revolution, then the USSR took back most of that land after WW2, and then Russia lost it again with the fall of the USSR.

So, from the Russian point of view, what happened was that some historical regions of Russia broke off and started acting intensely anti-Russian. Imagine if a part of your country that has a different culture from the rest of the country decides to break off, and then says that it was occupied by you during all that time when you lived in the same country and that you are evil and all the people who share your culture don't belong there.

I would be okay, because it's from a different culture. For example, in Estonia during the first republic there were around 2% russians. After the USSR, there were 25% russians in Estonia. Russification was practiced by both USSR and the Russian Empire but the russian minorities in Europe have the largest nation in the world in the as a homeland. Those who say that the regions that broke off from the Empire or the USSR are Russian are very uneducated in history.

[Gallia-]

Most of those lands used to be part of Russia for about 300 years. Remember, Tsarist Russia was bigger than the USSR. Russia was at its greatest territorial extent in 1914. Then it lost some land due to WW1 and the Revolution, then the USSR took back most of that land after WW2, and then Russia lost it again with the fall of the USSR.

So, from the Russian point of view, what happened was that some historical regions of Russia broke off and started acting intensely anti-Russian. Imagine if a part of your country that has a different culture from the rest of the country decides to break off, and then says that it was occupied by you during all that time when you lived in the same country and that you are evil and all the people who share your culture don't belong there.

I would be okay, because it's from a different culture. For example, in Estonia during the first republic there were around 2% russians. After the USSR, there were 25% russians in Estonia. Russification was practiced by both USSR and the Russian Empire but the russian minorities in Europe have the largest nation in the world in the as a homeland. Those who say that the regions that broke off from the Empire or the USSR are Russian are very uneducated in history.

It's broadly accurate to compare Russia's colonization of Eastern Europe with other Europeans' colonization of America, TBH.

Even be completely accurate.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/euro/article/139315

[Raventsvo]

"Should Western Democracies Ban Russian soft, anti-viruses and social networks in their countries?"

No thanks, I use Yandex and I love using Yandex. I'd rather not have some politician's butthurt stop me from using it.

[Bheothachadh]

Franco...? I don't think so. But regardless, the general point stands, though we may disagree about individual cases.

Maybe I'm misspelling his name but he did keep Spain out of WWII

Yes I like him for that, and he defended Catholicism from anti-theist terrorist republicans, but he repressed the Basque, Catalan and Galician people! He tried to wipe out the last non-indo european language in western europe! He's a cultural genocider!

muh freedum and democracy uhhhhhhhh
There's no real reason to hate dictatorships unless you're a liberal who thinks freedom is a deserved/real thing.

Even then, it's utterly stupid to hate all dictators equally, without discrimination. Some dictators are better than the alternative. Some dictatorships are necessary.

I actually support democracy, but I find myself having to defend dictators on NSG all the time against starry-eyed idealists who don't understand that sometimes a dictatorship can be the lesser evil.

For a dictatorship to work, only one man needs to be competent. For a democracy to work, a majority of the population need to be competent.