[lowkey]

Today I learned. Just so we are clear, do we both agree that supporting Nazi soldiers is a bad thing no matter which side?

Also, it seems we both agree that invading another country and shelling civilians is also wrong, whether it is Russia or the US or others waging wars of aggression.

[CoastalCoder]

If I may add my two cents: I disagree that supporting $BADGUY soldiers is always bad.

It's conceivable that in some situations, it seems likely to result in the less-evil outcome.

Case in point, suppose you had a neo-nazi unit offering to take out a Russian artillery battery that was shelling civilians. Do you refuse to truck them to that vicinity because you find them repugnant?

Life is full of hard choices; doubly so in war.

[lowkey]

Would it change anything in your eyes to know that the Azov Batallion has been shelling civilian Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas region since 2014?

I am firmly of the position that no Nazi is a good Nazi. I am surprised to find myself in the minority here but based on the downvotes it is clear that my position is not a popular one.

[CoastalCoder]

> Would it change anything in your eyes ...

Not really. The example I chose was already hypothetical, and not necessarily apropos to the current situation in Ukraine. The additional context you provided doesn't change my basic point that there's a calculation to be made.

> I am firmly of the position that no Nazi is a good Nazi.

I think we may be discussing two different things. I wasn't talking about the moral standing of individual Nazis. I was talking about the moral calculation of temporarily collaborating with them to possibly achieve a better outcome than not collaborating with them.

Extending the earlier example, suppose there's just one neo-nazi, who's offering to go on a suicide mission that will take out 1000 Russian artillery batteries, saving 500,000 Ukranians. And nobody but you would know, so the neo-nazi's actions couldn't even potentially inspire others.

Would you entertain the possibility that that is a good trade-off? If yes, then you might be agreeing that there's a calculation to be performed. If no, then I'd wonder why you'd find it preferable to let 500,000 Ukranians die. (I'm not calling you a moral monster. I'm just trying to lay things out that shows there's an actual dilemma.)

[lowkey]

It seems you had to stretch the details of your example well beyond the range of possibility in order to make your case.

Yes, I would would most certainly agree to support such an individual in the implausible scenario you just described.

However under those circumstances I would argue that the soldier is no longer a Nazi, but in fact he is now a Nazi defector - so not the same thing.

I am very glad to see how difficult it still is for folks on HN to support Nazis, even when they fight for Ukraine against the Russians.

I don’t support Nazis - never have - not even Ukrainian Nazis. I think it is hypocritical to do so and from your comment neither do you I believe.

[clusterfish]

I'm with you on all points. Nazis are bad, of course. Invasions are bad. The reason I cared to comment is because Ukrainian Nazis are used as justification for the invasion in Russia.

But nazis exist in many countries, and are given legitimacy in many countries. In Ukraine they're paramilitary, in Russia they're a mercenary force, in Germany they sit in parliament (AFD), in US they have obvious affiliation with the political party that is in power half the time (and have strong legal protections for both their speech and guns).

All of that can be used as excuses to forcefully "denazify" a country, like Russia is doing now, but none of that are actually good reasons to invade those countries or deny any of those countries the right for independence, not even close.

[NicoJuicy]

Azov is 400 people on a population of 44 million.

It's not even worth mentioning.

Ps. Wagner group is > 6000.

Ps2. Every country has some dumbass neonazi's somewhere.

[lowkey]

I mentioned it because the AZOV Battallion are official paid members of Ukraine’s National Guard and have been since before 2014. I think that makes it worth mentioning.

How many other countries (that the West defends) can claim to have openly employed neo-Nazis officially by the Government for as long as Ukraine?

I am old enough to remember when an entire Canadian trucker convoy protest movement was smeared as Nazis because 1 protester held 1 nazi flag on the 1st day of a 24 day protest before being asked to leave by other protesters.

Checks notes - That was only a couple weeks ago.

Now it seems that so many are willing to look the other way or even apologize for employing literal Nazis with guns simply because these Nazis are fighting for the ‘right’ side.

For the record, it is OK to support Ukraine’s right to defend itself, while also denouncing the decision to employ Nazis.

A few weeks ago, I would have expected nothing less from HN. Suddenly it seems the rules have changed?

Shaking my head, I don’t understand.