Everybody knows that a lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth has even got its boots on.

And the ongoing turmoil over Canada’s parliament recognizing former SS trooper Yaroslav Hunka highlights one of the most important reasons why.

Something that’s untrue but simple is far more persuasive than a complicated, nuanced truth — a major problem for Western democracies trying to fight disinformation and propaganda by countering it with the truth, and one reason why fact-checking and debunking are only of limited use for doing so.

In the case of Hunka, the mass outrage stems from his enlistment with one of the foreign legions of the Waffen-SS, fighting Soviet forces on Germany’s eastern front. And it’s a demonstration of how when history is complicated, it can be a gift to propagandists who exploit the appeal of simplicity.

This history is complicated because fighting against the USSR at the time didn’t necessarily make you a Nazi, just someone who had an excruciating choice over which of these two terror regimes to resist. However, the idea that foreign volunteers and conscripts were being allocated to the Waffen-SS rather than the Wehrmacht on administrative rather than ideological grounds is a hard sell for audiences conditioned to believe the SS’s primary task was genocide. And simple narratives like “everybody in the SS was guilty of war crimes” are more pervasive because they’re much simpler to grasp.

Canada’s enemies have thus latched on to these simple narratives, alongside concerned citizens in Canada itself, with the misstep over Hunka being used by Russia and its backers to attack Ukraine, Canada and each country’s association with the other.

According to Russia’s ambassador in Canada, Hunka’s unit “committed multiple war crimes, including mass murder, against the Russian people, ethnic Russians. This is a proven fact.” But whenever a Russian official calls something a “proven fact,” it should set off alarms. And sure enough, here too the facts were invented out of thin air. Repeated exhaustive investigations — including by not only the Nuremberg trials but also the British, Canadian and even Soviet authorities — led to the conclusion that no war crimes or atrocities had been committed by this particular unit.

But this is just the latest twist in a long-running campaign by the Russian Embassy in Ottawa, dating back even to Soviet times, when the USSR would leverage accusations of Nazi collaboration for political purposes as part of its “active measures” operations.

And given Moscow’s own history of aggression and atrocities during World War II and its aftermath, there’s a special cynicism underlying the Russian accusations. Russia feels comfortable shouting about “Nazis,” real or imaginary, in Ukraine or elsewhere, because unlike Nazi Germany, leaders and soldiers of the Soviet Union were never put on trial for their war crimes. Russia clings to the Nuremberg trials as a benchmark of legitimacy because as a victorious power, it was never subjected to the same reckoning. And yet, both before and after their collaborative effort to carve up eastern Europe between them, the Soviets and the Nazis had so much in common that it’s now illegal to point these similarities out in Russia.

Yet, it’s not just enemies of democracy that are subscribing to the seductively simple. Jewish advocacy groups in Canada have been understandably loud in their condemnation of Hunka’s recognition. But here, too, accusations risk being influenced more by misconception and supposition than history and evidence.

The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center registered its outrage, noting that Hunka’s unit’s “crimes against humanity during the Holocaust are well-documented” — a statement that doesn’t seem to have any more substance than the accusation by Russia.

In fact, during previous investigations of the same group carried out by a Canadian Commission of Inquiry, Simon Wiesenthal himself was found to have made broad accusations that were found to be “nearly totally useless” and “put the Canadian government to a considerable amount of purposeless work.”

The result of all this is that otherwise intelligent people are now trying to outdo each other in a chorus of evidence-free condemnation.

In Parliament itself, Canadian Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman called Hunka “a monster.” Meanwhile, Poland’s education minister appears to have decided to first seek Hunka’s extradition to Poland, then try to determine whether he has actually committed any crime afterward. And the ostracism is now extending to members of Hunka’s family, born long after any possible crime could have been committed during World War II.

The episode shows that dealing with complex truths is hard but essential. Unfortunately, though, a debunking or fact-checking approach to countering disinformation relies on an audience willing to put in the time and effort to read the accurate version of events, and be interested in discovering it in the first place. This means debunking mainly works for very specific audiences, like government officials, analysts, academics and (some) journalists.

But most of the rest of us, especially when just scrolling through social media, are instead likely to have a superficial and fleeting interest, which means a lengthy exposition of why a given piece of information is wrong will be far less likely to reach us and have an impact.

In the Hunka case, commentary taking a more balanced view of the complex history does exist, but it’s rare, and when it does occur, it is by unfortunate necessity very long — a direct contrast to most propaganda narratives that are successfully spread by Russia and its agents. Sadly, an idea simple enough to fit on a T-shirt is vastly more powerful than a rebuttal that has to start with “well, actually . . .”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has now issued an apology in his own name over Hunka’s ovation too. However, any further discussion of the error has to be carefully phrased, as any suggestion that Canada is showing contrition for “honoring a Nazi” would acquiesce to the rewriting of history by Russia and its backers, and concede to allegations of Hunka’s guilt that have no basis in evidence.

It’s true that Hunka should never have been invited into Canada’s House of Commons. But that’s not because he himself might be guilty of any crime. Rightly or wrongly, on an issue so toxic, it was inevitable the invitation would provide a golden opportunity for Russian propaganda.

  • BarqsHasBite
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    After reading more of this thread, you are either portraying your position absofuckinglutely terribly, or you are a Nazi apologist but when countered you meekly agree and say “that’s my point”. Nowhere do you actually make “your point”, only when you’re cornered.

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The point I’ve been trying to make throughout this thread is that both the Nazis and the Soviets were terrible to the people of Eastern Europe, so the people on the ground were faced with a choice between two monsters. The fact that some of them chose the wrong side does not automatically make them bad people. That is also the point of the article OP posted.

      The problem is that there are a lot of people who see the situation in absolutely black and white terms. There has to be a “good guy” and a “bad guy”, and those who side with the “good guy” are good and those who side with the “bad guy” are bad. Since one of the sides here is Hitler, then obviously that means whoever was fighting against him must be the “good guys”. It’s not as simple as that. But of course, now that I’ve gone and said that, bam I go off into the “bad guy” category as far as those people are concerned.

      I’d really like to see these comments where I’m supposedly being a Nazi apologist or a Nazi sympathizer. I’m pretty sure I’ve not said a single good thing about them, at least not as an ideology (I did object to the notion of jailing literally every member of the Nazi party after the war, which with the hindsight of history I think seems to have worked out okay. And you seem to agree with that with your “have a trial” point).

      The Nazis were terrible. The Soviets were also terrible. And the people caught in between them at the time often had to choose one of those sides, without that hindsight of history to tell them which one would end up being the victors.

      • @ExLisper@linux.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Yes, I’m sure there were some people that got caught between Waffen-SS and the Soviets and suffered because of that. This guy was not one of them. He was in Waffen-SS.

        • FaceDeer
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          I’ve only been speaking in generalities, I don’t know the specifics of Hunka’s case in particular.

          People did get conscripted into the Waffen-SS. Apparently not Hunka, based on other comments, but simply “being in the Waffen-SS” doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

      • BarqsHasBite
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not reading all that after reading through your other comments, but I did catch the what-what-whaaboutism. JFC back to what I said, have a trial. And you’re back to absofuckinglutely terribly or Nazi apologist. I know which I’ve decided. Now go away.

        • FaceDeer
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          That’s not how whataboutism works. Whataboutism is an attempt to excuse bad behaviour by pointing out that the “other side” does it too. I’m saying that both sides are bad. It’s literally the opposite of whataboutism.

          But you didn’t read it, so.

      • @Oderus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -31 year ago

        Solid response but you won’t get much upvotes here because people have made up their minds long time ago. New information won’t dissuade them because they’re already committed to lighting their torches and sharpening their pitchforks.

        Historians say this is complex but all the non-experts are making this so black and white it’s hard to believe.

        • FaceDeer
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          Thanks. Yeah, even when you discount the higher Tankie proportion on many Lemmy instances I find this is a common situation in general. The simple-minded “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing means if I say bad things about Stalin I must be supporting Hitler. Despite the fact that I’ve also said plenty of bad things about Hitler and nothing good about him.

          Ah well. I’ve never been in this for the Karma, after all.

          • @Oderus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -21 year ago

            Oh, and don’t forget being called Holocaust Denier or something equally vapid and untrue. Who the fuck is denying that? Literally, no one but here they are because that’s the Russian strategy, accuse, accuse accuse and never let up.

            Imagine falling for Kremlin propaganda and not even knowing it? These people are morons for believing the Russian government considering it’s well established that they’ve committed war crimes in Ukraine. First rule of propaganda, blame others for what you’re doing. Fox News and the GOP do it all the time and their supporters can’t see the forest from the trees cause they’re just too simple-minded to understand.