I replied to someone saying that the USSR defeated the Nazis saying that it was a group effort. Got into an argument and called a Nazi repeatedly because “I was mad that the USSR defeated the Nazis and hated them for it” which is ridiculous. This isn’t the first time that’s happened on Lemmy. What’s up with that?
No they didn’t. If a non-aggression pact allowing Nazi annexation of territory is equivalent to an alliance, then France and Britain allied with the Nazis multiple times before the Soviets. There is a reason about how the only non-aggression pact that you hear about is Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and not the Munich Agreements or the Franco-German Declaration, etc. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact came out of the Soviets being turned down multiple times by France and Britain to forming an anti-fascist alliance.
This is the selective remembrance of appeasement. It is ignored that that encompassed many non-aggression pacts with the Nazis and is only remembered to selectively invoke for war hawking. If we say a nation is evil, than not being on board with a war of aggression is actually evil (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.) and you are just like Chamberlain, whose only motivation was being a pussy. You can discuss the morality or effectiveness, but Molotov-Ribbentrop was to try to delay the war for preparation and that the Nazis wouldn’t be stupid enough to start a war without their own oil and steel supplies and without preventing a possibility of a two front war with France/Britain, and the Soviets were caught flat-footed because of overestimating the rationality of the Nazis. There was also the worry that France and Britain might eventually join the Nazis since they were pretty vocal about fascism being a possible necessary evil as it is the most extreme form of anti-communism, even though the attempt of appeasement was trying to sit out an eventual war between the Nazis and USSR, since Judeo-Bolshevism was a thing Nazis believed before they even took power.
Britain didn’t invade a country and split it with the Nazis lmao. They were hardly good guys (just ask the Bengalis), but they didn’t form an offensive alliance with literally Hitler.
Wasn’t Czechoslovakia (partially) split between the Nazis and Poland similar to how the Soviets initially split Poland with the Nazis? Not sure what Britain did in that direction, but this what I have heard from someone living/formerly living in the Czech republic
No. While an utterly shitty PR move for the time, Poland took a 801.5 km2 piece of the highly disputed territory, which was previously in a dramatic tug war between both countries, to a level that Czechoslovakia took it during the Polish-Soviet war.
It shouldn’t have happened, it was an idiotic move for Poland even at the time and played right into Nazi propaganda…
Which you are repeating now, 87 years later. Who says it’s the victors that write history…
It was not “similar to how the Soviets initially split Poland with the Nazis”. Not even close. But UNLIKE Russia (that considers itself seemlingly the heir to the USSR), Poland history and multiple figures acknowledged that it was stupid and shameful.
It’s a lie that USSR-Germany made any agreement to split Poland. USSR liberated it before Germany could take control of the east.
Hahahaha the history books you are reading are wild. I assume Finland also started the winter war?
Don’t be ridiculous, it was a summer war.
Just like Russia has been “liberating” Ukraine.
No, the USSR did agree to take Eastern Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop, but they did wait until after the Nazis took the western part before starting their invasion. A combination of waiting to see if Poland could fight off the Nazis, meaning that they didn’t have to worry about further Nazi expansion, and after that moving the border west to provide more territory needing to be taken in an eventual war with Germany.
Secret protocol agreement may have existed, or the forgery backed up by 1990s Russia cozying up to west and joining Stalin derangement syndrome unanimity.
Still, the USSR did not encourage/applaud a nazi controlled Warsaw, and weather Germany could take entire country or not, would have been easier to buy tolerance for nazi controlled Warsaw. Requiring a defensive buffer proved prescient. “If you want a pact, accept us taking Warsaw”
“May have existed”?
Molotov himself inadvertently implied their existence numerous times in his conversations with Chuev (Molotov Remembers; Molotov-Chuev interviews between 1970-1986, published 1993).
Khrushchev acknowledged their existence in his memoirs, which nobody disputes the provenance of, and which were published in the West in the 1970s.
The CPSU itself acknowledged their existence at the end of 1989, and published their copy of the text in their official journal.
The literal Soviet documents, held by the General Department of the CPSU Central Committee, were located after the archives were declassified in 1992, and have since been published widely.
No party seems to dispute the existence of the secret protocols. If you have a single credible source that does, feel free to cite them.
Ok. Very likely existed. I was unaware of Kruschev/Molotov acknowledgements. Doesn’t affect modern nazi mischaracterization that pact, even with that compromise, constitutes any semblence of an alliance between the 2 powers.
While it is not justifying it, but is that really a major distinction. The purpose of several previous non-aggression pacts was to sign off on Nazi territorial annexation (again, selectively remembered with appeasement) of saying “it is okay to take the Sudetenland” and “We wont use the Anschluss as a Causus Belli”. The reason the Soviets took the eastern part of Poland was to push the border west and that they felt that they could justify this by the fact that it was part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Russia during the revolution and that it was lost to get peace in WW1. That does not justify it, just that any talk about the Soviets, rather than France and Britain, being more compromised and accommodating to the Nazis or that the Soviets were more pro-Nazi than the West is demonstrably wrong and rewritting history for cold war reasons.
Lol please just shut up with your rewriting of history. No one is going to listen to your braindead ruzzian take on how the USSR was the good guys.
Lol, the cold war is over. You don’t have to keep rewriting history to justify the US as the only good guys and that Klaus Barbie and Rheinhard Gehlen were misunderstood.
Tell your dear leader Putin that…
Putin is not my leader, inform your boss Trump.
Why do you got his dick in your mouth, then?
You do realize that Putin and the modern Russian Federation are both anti-communists? It is not 1985, though you might not realize that sitting in McCarthy and Nixon’s open graves.
No shit they’re anti-communist. If they were actual communists, the people would have the power not the government. You’re still defending them and trying to deny actual history. So what’s up with that?
Nobody here is defending Russia. You seem to have a failure in basic understanding here.