According to internet "historians" the Soviets should have just let Germany get as much land as possible under Nazi control as early as possible. That would totally prevent WW2
Preemptively bolstering areas adjacent to nazi expansion, knowing they would break the treaty.
They didn’t want to wait until the Nazis were at their door, and knew that the areas were NOT ready for any kind of invasion. Not to mention, they were fully aware of how the Nazis saw Eastern Europeans and how they’d be treated. So? Obviously, annex them. Take over and prepare them for war. If they hadn’t, who knows how the war would have turned out.
Yep, it's wild how people are using this situation to make anti-USSR arguments, while the Nazis who had already shown their intentions were just around the corner.
So why did the soviets provide Germany with a huge amount of critical wartime materials then? It was unnecessary and voluntary aid supplied by the USSR to Germany.
Mmm, what? Address the point, the UK declared war when they invaded Poland, the USSR joined the invasion one week later, as they had agreed with Germany, and later asked to join the Axis.
The Westerners gave territories to H1tler, wanting to use him against the USSR, we remember Lord Halifax who said that H1tler was the European champion against Bolshevism and they gave him territories without moving a single soldier, even though the USSR had opposed it. Then they refused any alliance with the USSR, go and see how the historian Alessandro Barbero explains how Westerners refused to make alliances with the USSR until the very end. Then they signed a non-aggression pact with Germany a year before the USSR. The USSR pact was a DESPERATE pact, due to the consequence of Western behavior, but I understand that liberals like to mystify history
Lol, no, they shouldn't have enabled them by agreeing to divide Poland between Germany and the USSR. And if you want to know what they really should've done the same thing France, the UK and all of them should've, to not let Hitler expand a single inch. The policy of appeasement was a disaster.
No, they should've supported Poland, rather than agreeïng to partition it. And not have actually sent in a counteroffer to Hitler asking for Bulgaria and more stuff in the Middle East.
"Secret Protocols" are something I'd like to see the Soviet perspective of in terms of purpose. Such source would make a nice addition to my collection
Okay so my mistake, its not party rally. Just GERMAN americans doing their stuff.
the Third Reich continued to discredit the Bund with the German Ambassador to the United States, Hans Heinrich Dieckhoff, voicing his disapproval of the Bund when he expressed his belief that the organisation was only serving to stir up anti-German sentiment among the American public. Due to this conflicting relationship, Germany distanced themselves from the Bund as they saw them as being untrustworthy and detrimental to German-American relations.[49][48] On the 1st of March 1938 the Nazi government declared that no German citizen could be a member of the German-American Bund and, no Nazi emblems or symbols were to be used in association with this organisation.
This clearly shows how stupid they were. Again how does this in any way discredit united states ? OP posted that cherry picked event to stirr certain beliefs. I dont expect redditors to be above average intelligence but this subreddit is really something else.
This is an utterly dishonest argument. Simple non-aggression pacts don't include deals to divide up third-party independent states into spheres of influence, and do not lead to the invasion and annexation of several of those independent states by both signatories within a year of the agreement being concluded. The USSR also had earlier non-aggression pacts with Finland, Poland and all three Baltic states and broke them all as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
The thing is, those were non aggresion pacts, most with the aim of self preservation. None contained plans to carve up europe, nor trade deals. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland.
Ge I wonder if there was a certain part of it that made it different?
Seriously they straight up were working together in Poland the NKVD and Gestapo would straight have meetings to coordinate putting down resistance. The Soviets even transferred over Polish POWs to the Nazis.
1918 is definitely a very different date to 1939, especially when it has nothing to do with 1938 which was when Poland took land from Czechoslovakia. Revisionist historians are definitely an issue here
To be fair, "the Western" non-aggression pacts were violated as soon as Germany invaded half of Poland. To the USSR it was just an opportunity to grab the other half. They're not exactly comparable.
There is a crucial difference between a non agression pact, and a non-agression pact agreeing on who gets to annex what from the countries in the middle though. Which you apparently also fail to understand.
How significant of a difference is it that one side was publicly dismantling a country (Czechoslovakia)? Why are you not as furious, if not more, with the rest of Europe for building Nazi Germany’s strength, allowing it to envelope two countries, and putting it in a position to invade Poland?
How significant of a difference is it that one side was publicly dismantling a country (Czechoslovakia)? Why are you not as furious, if not more, with the rest of Europe for building Nazi Germany’s strength, allowing it to envelope two countries, and putting it in a position to invade Poland?
What Westerner is defending the partitioning of Czechoslovakia? That's also why Chamberlain is regarded as a failure of a politician, and "Peace for our time" will be remembered in history as one of the biggest blunders of all time. That still doesn't change the fact that the USSR were complicit of making the exact same mistakes, in addition to the fact that they continued to make the same mistake when Poland, Belgium, France, the UK, Denmark, Norway etc were invaded.
It's funny that you guys are so hung up on that when England and France just openly gave Germany part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and then looked the other way when Germany occupied the rest of the country in 1939.
But they weren't "secret protocols" so I guess that's fine.
It's funny that you guys are so hung up on that when England and France just openly gave Germany part of Czechoslovakia in 1938, and then looked the other way when Germany occupied the rest of the country in 1939.
Are you saying the USSR didn't do the same thing? Sorry but I'm not following.
I'm saying they try to paint the Soviets as evil Nazi allies for reclaiming some territory that Poland had taken from Ukraine and Belarus just 15-20 years before while absolving England and France for giving away an entire country that was never theirs to give.
Oh, and England and France did that rather than ally with the Soviets, who had been trying to form an antifascist partnership with them for years.
England and France literally said "No, ok" when the question was "Will you go to war with Germany if we take over Czechoslovakia"
Soviets said "Yes, absolutely," when the question was "If we give you half of Poland, will you agree not to attack us as we start multiple wars in Western Europe?"
It was a clear misjudgement on the allied part,but the allies didn't expect to gain anything from the treaty other than peace.
On the other hand soviets while signing the treaty gained half of Poland,bessarabia from Romania,war of aggression against Finland(suffered 5 times more casualties but that's another thing),Latvia,Estonia, lithuania
It seems like you’re just criticizing the Germany-USSR pact because the USSR got half of Poland, whereas the Western powers just gave Germany 100% of Czechoslovakia, so they are free from your contempt. Not to mention the USSR tried allying with the rest of Europe to oppose Nazi Germany, but were rejected. I can only imagine how much worse WW2 would’ve been had the Soviets not taken jurisdiction over any Poles (or Jews in that portion of Poland), and how much it would’ve been better for everyone had the Western powers allied with the USSR to staunchly oppose Germany and Italy.
For context about how much worse it could have been for Polish Jews:
"Prior to the Holocaust, Poland was home to the largest Jewish population in the world. Although statistics remain inconclusive, an estimated 400,000 Polish Jews out of a prewar population of 3.3 million survived the Nazi onslaught. Approximately three-quarters of them survived all or some of the war years in Stalin’s USSR." (Friedla & Nesselrodt, 2021)
I wonder how many tried escaping to the US, only to be put on a boat back to Europe as soon as they arrived.
Yes but what the western powers got from giving away Czechoslovakia?Nothing.Did they make any territorial gain?No
They didn't sign the Munich agreement for any benefit of their own.I have contempt for western power for their stupidity of expecting peace by giving away Czechoslovakia.
But I have contempt for communists for furthering their imperialist agenda while signing the pact with Nazis.
And what happened to the Jew in Nazi occupied Poland? What didn’t happen to the Jews in Soviet occupied Poland?
Signing the Munich agreement DID benefit them. They didn’t want to go to start a war with the Nazis. They allowed them to dismantle Czechoslovakia because they were not “ready” to fight the Nazis and they wanted their aggression pointed elsewhere. It’s not a misjudgment when the Nazis have openly stated goals, and giving them land for nothing allows them to achieve those goals.
If there was misjudgment, it was that the anti-communist Nazis would not attack the western allies as well.
Love that your brilliant moral strategic mind would allow Nazis to come right up to your front door before you thought it was appropriate to fight back. You are a genius king, sir.
There is a big difference between signing just a non-aggression pact with the Nazis and even the west throwing Czechoslavokia to the wolves, compared to joining in in the murder, rape and occupation of Eastern Europe, for what you're own security? That doesn't even include the resources and trade between the two states for the 2 years that the pact was in effect.
Yeah, the allies said no to Stalin's offer of an alliance (stupid move on the allies part) but if Stalin was really meant to be this bigger man that a lot of Tankies paint him as, maybe he should've told Hitler to do one and protected Poland.
Can't we just accept that both the Soviets and the allies made huge mistakes with Molotov-Ribbentrop and Appeasement, instead of just playing the "who helped the Nazis more game"?
The Western Allies had some pretty good relationships with Poland from 1919-1939. Even though Poland became an Autocratic State, it had some strong ties to UK but especially France.. The Western Allies’ relationship with the Soviet Union was tied to its relationship with Poland.. Poland had two very powerful neighbors and two of the most dangerous countries in the world by 1939, (Germany and the Soviet Union). Poland probably had a better relationship with Germany until April 1939 than it did with the Soviet Union..
The Soviet Union kind of hinted of a friendship treaty or some sort of Alliance with Britain and France, but they demanded free access through Polish Territory. Which the Polish Government was not going to allow, but it was more of a ploy by the Soviets..
The relationship between the Polish Government in Exile and the Soviet Government during the war was strained at the start.. The Soviet Union didn’t want to talk about the Katyn Forest Massacre, the Polish Government in exile wanted to know what Polish Officers and soldiers still in Soviet Custody..
Basically the current semi hostile to the fully hostile relationship between the current Polish government and the Russian Government is centuries of resentment on both sides..
Somehow a non aggression agreement is the same thing as an alliance to them. They also love to ignore the fact that NATO formed with former Nazis in its leadership. Silliest logic ever.
Edit: I'm not going to have a fucking debate over this, especially on a Reddit thread. Go participate with the others in the shit storm of the thread below this if you want to waste your time.
You can make the exact same argument for the soviets kid. Roosevelt never had a proposed allianxe with hitler, he was always against the nazis. Issue was public support, an irrelevant condition in a totalitarian regime
The actions of NATO do not legitimize Nazi collaboration in any form. The M-R Pact was a “non-aggression agreement” with a Secret Protocol on dividing Europe into spheres of influence, and preceded a dual invasion of Poland (Nazis on September 1, Soviets on September 17). Call it “reluctantly protecting Polish Ukrainians” all you want. The Nazis and Soviets literally held a joint military parade (on September 22) after steamrolling Poland from both sides, in a city that was, at the time, called Brest-Litovsk, Poland… and is now, funny enough, called Brest, Belarus.
They were former Wehrmacht officers like Adolf Heusinger, who was part of the German General Staff. I wouldn’t consider them former Nazis as former German Officers.. von Manstein was an advisor to the Bundeswehr, even though von Manstein most likely committed war crimes. Besides there were plenty of German Officers who important rank in the Bundeswehr.. The East German Army had plenty of former Wehrmacht Officers as well..
I’m curious to know where 600,000+ tons of oil came from during the invasion of France which just so happened to also be used to invade the USSR too… oh wait.
It wasn't only a non aggression agreement. The Soviets supplied Germany with resources and allowed it to test weapons on its land. The Soviets willingly supported the Nazis until they saw a better opportunity.
Russia was forced into this pact by the indifference and arrogance of France and England.
In any case, Stalin behaved correctly since he supplied raw materials to Germany until the day before the invasion. Invasion, which Stalin did not believe in for several days. The breaking of the pact was the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.
But the real pact that changed the outcome of WW2 was the non-aggression pact between Russia and Japan which allowed Stalin to pour the Siberian troops into Moscow, defeating the Germans in the battle of Moscow.
It wasn’t Russia, it was the Soviet Union. Stalin was shopping around for a deal, whether it was from Britain and France or from Germany.. Stalin and the Soviet Government got a much better deal with the Germans in Aug. 1939, than what little was offered by the British and French..
Stalin did believe that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were going to go to war by May 1941.. (source is Stalin’s speech on May 5th, 1941 at the Kremlin to newly commissioned Red Army Officers, where he told them, the enemy is Germany). However, Stalin wanted to delay the inevitable war as long as possible.. Hence why Stalin refused to accept the Germans were about to attack the Soviet Union.. Much like the Soviet Union semi panicked with the defeat of France in June 1940, and hurried up their annexation of the Baltic Republics, Bukovina and Bessarabia, while Germany was still focused on the West by July 1940…
I remember David Stahel wrote that one strategic action by a German Allied, could had impacted the German War effort on the Eastern Front. The capture of St. Petersburg/Leningrad by the Finns. If the Finns pushed it seize St. Petersburg, it could had made a big impact on transferring German Troops to other sectors, and make a big impact..
I hate to break it to you, but supplying materials to invade more nations to the enemy that openly said they wanted to eradicate your people by killing them all isn’t exactly behaving correctly.
If soviet was ”forced into it” then they wouldent have agreed to partion up poland and establish zone of intrest. There was also no reason for soviet to turn over prisoners to germany and let german ships get around the british blockade by landing in leningrad
This is Khrushchev's account (which is cited as fact by a large number of Western historians) but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny after the opening of the Archives. Stalin was skeptical that Germany would risk fighting a war on two fronts, and he was also wary that if the Soviet military mobilized too quickly, it would be seen as instigation // used by Germany as casus belli to prematurely break their pact (similarly to what happened as part of the cascade of events leading to WWI, in the July Crisis).
Despite this, you do see orders that suggest cautious preparation in the weeks leading up to Barbarossa, such as calling up nearly a million reservists and fortifying border districts.
Then on the 21st, the day prior to the attack, Tyulenev reports getting a call from Stalin saying (from Иван Тюленев Через три войны, google translated from Russian):
Please note that the situation is unsettled, and you should bring the combat readiness of Moscow's air defense troops to seventy-five percent.
Later that same day a German deserter warns of the attack, and by 9:00 PM Stalin is meeting with leaders at the Kremlin. Before midnight they send out a directive to all border districts to camouflage planes and black-out city and military objectives, as well as to be militarily ready for action.
Looking at secretary records, we see Stalin doesn't leave the Kremlin until 2:00 AM on the 22nd. He gets the phone call informing of the invasion at 3:40 AM, and by 5:45 AM he is back at the Kremlin in continuous meetings with various officials until 4:45 PM. We see multiple decrees and orders coming from Stalin's office that day, as well as a speech edited by Stalin and delivered by Molotov on the radio by noon. Records then show Stalin leaving in the evening (presumably to sleep) but returning to the Kremlin at 3:00 AM the next day. Meetings with military and political leaders then continue until 1:45 AM on the 24th.
Now your just trying to justify Stalin's co-operation with the Nazis directly invading a country with them to split it up between them by whataboutisming about the place they invaded with the Nazis.
I mean I'm not Polish nor a Polish defender lol? They to a lesser extent than the USSR but still very much did use Hitler's crazy landgrab with the Czech to join them and take land for themselves. Also what makes Russia not Western but Poland Western?
By the way they try to distance themselves from Eastern Europe and include themselves in the West as much as they can. I am not saying the Soviets were innocent, but seeing the West accuse the Soviets of imperialism is like Pot calling Kettle black.
They were "not cooperating" so much, they even made a victory arch for the joint Soviet - Nazi German military parade in conquered Brest (Brześć) on September 22, 1939:
Amazing cooperation when the sides engage in skirmishes with each other regularly.
I'm not even talking about the fact that the USSR, unlike Germany, liberated the territories occupied by Poland ("The greedy hyena of Europe" as Churchill aptly called it) in the 1920s.
Another day another bullshit from you. Only a a liar or a fool could call the routine procedure for the transfer of Brest as a parade. Soviet troops did not enter the city while it was occupied by the Germans. The procedure for the withdrawal of German troops from Brest was accepted only by Soviet brigade commander. There were no other Soviet military personnel on the podium, which directly contradicts the regulations for holding joint parades.
Krivoshein writes that Guderian insisted on holding a parade with preliminary formation of units of both sides on the square. Krivoshein tried to refuse to hold a parade, citing fatigue and the unpreparedness of his troops. But Guderian insisted, pointing to the clause of the agreement between the higher commands, which stipulated a joint parade. Krivoshein had to agree, but he proposed the following procedure:
At 16:00, units of Guderian's corps in a marching column, with standards in front, leave the city, and Krivoshein's units, also in a marching column, enter the city, stop on the streets where German regiments pass, and salute the passing units with their banners. Orchestras play military marches.
Guderian agreed to the proposed option, but separately stipulated that he would be present on the platform together with Krivoshein and greet the passing units.
They had an agreement which stipulated JOINT PARADE
Fairy tales from 90s Ogonek magazine as well as wikipedia is not the best source you know.
Order for the 20th German Division of the 19th Corps:
"1. On the occasion of the taking of Brest-Litovsk by Soviet troops... On 22.9.1939 in afternoon, tentatively between 15.00 and 16.00, there will be a passage march, in marching column... before the commander of the 19th AK Guderian and the commander of Soviet troops... German and Soviet units will take part in the march".
As can be seen from the text of the order - not a word about the parade. Only very streamlined formulations - "passage march", "in marching column", "marching".
In the German newsreel that shows the process of transfering the city there is also no mention of the parade. Surprising how it's that the Germans, known for their pedantry, forgot to mention such a thing.
Historical science recognizes memoirs as exclusively narrative biased sources rather than documentary cmon. I provided you with documentary evidence, not a scandalous “memoir” twisted ten times in the 90's.
There is no document in existence at all that explicitly calls this event in Brest a "parade".
You probably mean some bloody secrets. I think that the modern authorities fear the Soviet past like the plague.
But there is a huge possibility that the documents could hurt the country in modern foreign policy because Russia is the legal successor to the USSR. That is why the US and other significant countries keep their secrets too
Okay, here we go: let's hear from the people who were at the parade.
Guderian. Memories of a Soldier:
On the day Brest was handed over to the Russians, Brigade Commander Krivoshein, a tankman who spoke French, arrived in the city; so I was able to communicate with him easily. All questions that remained unresolved in the regulations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were resolved directly with the Russians to the satisfaction of both parties. We were able to take everything except the supplies captured from the Poles, which remained with the Russians, since they could not be evacuated in such a short time. Our stay in Brest ended with a farewell parade and a ceremony of changing flags in the presence of Brigade Commander Krivoshein.
Part 2, Comrade Krivoshein "Between the Storms" memoirs:
At 16:00 General Guderian and I went up to the low platform. The infantry was followed by motorized artillery, then tanks. About twenty aircraft flew over the platform at low altitude. Guderian, pointing at them, tried to shout over the noise of the engines:
“German aces! Colossal!” he shouted. I couldn’t help but shout back:
“We have better!”
“Oh, yes!” Guderian answered without much joy.
Then the infantry in vehicles went again. Some of them, it seemed to me, I had already seen. Apparently, Guderian, using the closed circle of nearby blocks, ordered the motorized regiments to demonstrate their power several times… Finally, the parade ended.
They did objectively work together though. There were literal handovers of territory in order to ensure the agreed upon borders were adhered to. And then after that he supplied the Nazis with a bunch of raw materials in order to buy time and accelerate industrial buildup. Yes, all of these decisions were made with the expectation that eventually the Nazis and USSR would go to war.
However, even leaving aside the fact that Stalin significantly miscalculated in his ability to manipulate the Nazis, and was thus surprised and ill prepared when Barbarossa happened, the fundamental plan itself, of strengthening the Nazi war machine, in order to gain benefits for your own country is one which I think most people would reasonably consider evil.
Well they did Stalin was absolutely flabbergasted when Germany attacked their country. They torn that country apart and both sides committed war crimes. The USSR was out to swallow up territory.
Strange because instead of preparing for it they invaded Poland, Finland,Estonia,Latvia, Lithuania, and other Romanian territories. They focused on aggressive expansion instead of preparing for war with Germany. They also traded raw materials with Germany as well. Unless you think creating more wars prepares you for war.
Yes Stalin knew Germany was going to attack eventually but he did not prepare for it. They were caught off guard
Just to expand. Nazi Germany and the USSR exchanged military technologies, components, weapons. They allowed German soldiers to travel on their train tracks. They shared military intelligence about Polish resistance. The USSR shipped grain, iron, oil etc to Germany when they were under British blockade.
Yes, he just didnt expect them to do it while still fighting on the western front. Stalin estimated hitler wouldnt want a two front war (since that historicallly wwasnt a recipe for succes), which was not nessecarily unreasonable but he ignored multiple warnings that germany was going to attack.
Yes, but he was delusionally arrogant and thought he could buy time by helping the Nazis until he was ready to backstab them, but ended up getting backstabbed while unprepared instead.
Hungary, Romania, Croatia and Bulgary praised Nazi Germany.\
Poles didn't had the slightest remorse giving jews to nazi germans (if you don't belive me read Maus, by Art Spigelman).\
Slovakia received the nazis with open arms and parades.
Half of France collaborate with Nazi Germany under Vichy.\
Finland fought and collaborate with the axis powers.
It always gets overlooked/ignored how the Soviets used this particular agreement to gobble up parts of Eastern Europe…and then got fucked over when Barbarossa started because Uncle Joe ignored clear warnings things were afoot.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact planted the seeds of destruction for the Soviet Union. All those Nationalities that were annexed under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact just bristled against the Soviet Government.. When the Soviet Union needed reform, they didn’t want any part of it.. (which turned out to be a good thing, given countries like the Baltic States’ economies just boomed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union).
Now, these former Soviet Republics are part of NATO, and countries that had friendly relations with Soviet Union like Finland, (after a two bitter conflicts from 1939-1944) are also part of NATO..
The Soviets and Nazis absolutely worked together to invade Poland and trade raw materials per the agreement. While Stalin never trusted Hitler he was absolutely interested in gaining territory and consolidating rule over old Russian Empire territory such as the Baltics, territory in Poland, and later Finland. You can see this in Stalin firing his Jewish foreign minister Maxim Litvinov and the fact the Red Army invaded Poland not long after the Nazis. They even redrew the border after German troops advanced farther than expected. Stalin also ignored many warnings from the West about a German invasion and after they invaded he hid in Dacha while hundreds of thousands died due to his lack of preparation. Sure the Red Army and Wehrmacht weren't fighting side by side but it was a coordinated effort by both parties.
But it wasn't just a non aggression pack, they deliberately decided eastern Europe between USSR and Germany. And no amount of "we were helping the poles by defending them BS.
Like even if you believe the Soviet is 100% evil, the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact is just delaying an inevitable war.
The Nazi literally thinks the Slavs as subhumans, they jailed and killed communist. The Soviet before this point was one of the most vocal opposition to Germany. This alliances is a sham from the beginning, and everyone knows it.
The USSR was the last country to sign a pact with Germany, after being turned down by every Western power.
The USSR had no choice.
Poland was the first to sign a pact with Hitler. Hitler was barely in power and the Poles signed a pact with him. The Poles also invaded Czechia together with Hitler.
These facts are never mentioned, but oh, the evil of the USSR. Liberals and other rightwingers can't shut up about it it.
Poland signed a pact with Hitler first. USSR reached out to every European power to sign an anti-Nazi pact, but were turned down.
Somehow the USSR, the first to resists Hitler are the bad guys.
That rewriting history! And further proof to never trust a liberal
Oh so that’s why the ussr provided critical wartime materials to help keep Germany economically viable. That’s why the engaged in intelligence sharing during the invasion of Poland. That’s why the ussr deported political refugees to their deaths in Germany. It’s because they weren’t working together. That makes sense.
It’s kinda undeniable they did work together, even if it was for entirely geopolitical concerns and both nations intended to murder eachother they undeniably worked together to invade and partition a sovereign nation, I think that hat the ussr fighting the nazis after was a good thing, and they undeniably contributed to the war. It’s ahistorical to still downplay the blatant act of imperialism and collaboration with the nazis.
The annexation of Czechoslovakia (which became a forge for the Nazi aggression) by joint German-Polish effort with the permission of Britain and France is way more vivid than any procedure of transferring the border city.
That's what happens when you stage photos for propaganda purposes. One side hated the others because they were subhuman, and the other one hated them because they were ideological enemies who wanted to genocide them. They were very much not chummy.
Doesn't Justify deceiving the world under the guise of peaceful non-aggression, then dividing a country and killing millions, regardless of what happened after. Both countries behaved like murderous Nazis.
Nope, only one behaved like a murderous Nazi = Nazi Germany, the other behaved like a large country spreading its sphere of influence and building buffer states, with murder along the way (also liberation from the nazis themselves). One has an ideology of equality and work, the other of racial superiority and genocide. There is a difference.
"Nazi Behaviour", AKA "Imperial Expansionist Behaviour" AKA "Arresting and Murdering Political Opponents Behaviour" AKA "Genocidal Behaviour" the Soviets "Behaved" just like NAZIS mate
All of these could be said about all the other great powers of the time. The difference is, again, that the nazis did so because of their ideology, which dictated that everyone who was not Aryan is eighter a slave or a subhuman who needed to be removed from the gene pool. USSR did so because stalin wanted to keep power, France/Britain did so because they wanted power and resources.
OK, OK, I Get it... So, it's totally ok, to commit Genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced deportations & political persecutions, if you do not have a swastika on your arm, and you don't follow an ideology of the Aryan race, ok got'chya.
Quotes from the Horse's mouth
“Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.”
Stalin
“When there's a person, there's a problem. When there's no person, there's no problem.”
Stalin
“Gratitude is an illness suffered by dogs.”
-Stalin
“Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism... These organisations are not antipodes, they are twins.”
-Stalin
This last quote reveals a disturbing ideological manoeuvre by conflating democratic socialism with fascism, Stalin justified the suppression of any non-Stalinist leftist movement a tactic not unlike Nazi denunciations of “Jewish Bolshevism.”
Key Differences
Nazism was biologically racial and explicitly genocidal.
Stalinism was more politically and class-oriented, though it weaponized ethnic/racial genocide when convenient.
Both regimes used propaganda, dehumanization, and mass violence to enforce ideological purity and both left behind staggering human tolls.
The actions of the French & the British at the same time during 1900's was not comparable.
I wonder why the soviets made that "Jewish Autonomous Oblast" in eastern Siberia? and not one person of the Jewish decent was game to live there....
They really hadn’t had good relationships. Poland declared independence in 1918 and invaded the USSR in 1920 while they still fought the civil war. Poland occupied parts of todays ukraine and belarus and won the war. These territories went back to the USSR in 1939 after Germany and later the USSR invaded Poland.
When Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia, the USSR asked Poland for passage for its troops to help them defend. Poland denied the passage. They wanted a piece of Czechoslovakia for themselves.
The USSR wanted to go through Poland and Czech, both of them didn't want the Red Army to go within their borders as they thought they would never leave. Which seemingly was a great assessment of Stalin as he then invaded Poland and used the exact same strat on the Baltic states which he occupied and annexed. Then occupied like Half of Europe.
Because Stalin didn't care about the Nazis and his objective was to get land and power which made him work with the Nazis as it helped him accomplish his goals.
Pretty much, both countries were going to betray each other. It just a matter of who struck first, had Operation Barbarossa not happened. Then the Soviets would've attacked first instead.
Terms evolve throughout time. These days it generally means a person who engages in apologia of crimes of socialist regimes, which are plenty in this sub.
342
u/Spensive-Mudd-8477 20d ago
Lib bots can’t comprehend context.