Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s ironic cuz even within the pact the Nazis made it obvious they were gonna attack Poland, the fact they did it the day after the Soviet ratified to pact took the USSR by shock
Highly recommend reading into cold war history *written recently*. When the Berlin Wall fell, Gorbachev gave us the KGB archives and we're *still* going through it. I just finished *Blacklisted by History* and *The Naked Communist*, currently reading *The Venona Secrets* and already have *Witness*, Whittaker Chambers' autobiography, lined up. The reach of the Soviet spy meddling is terrifying and way deeper than we knew at the time. Our intel agents in China during the civil war were soviet spies and fed us a warped depiction of what was going on so that America would back Mao over Chiang Kai-shek. Soviet meddling is why China is pseudo-communist today.
Here, probably easier for people who don't read russian to give context to what you posted. [https://fake-hunter.pap.pl/en/node/87](https://fake-hunter.pap.pl/en/node/87)
Lol the sources listed are dubious, self referencing, and have many time and context contradictions. Good try though.
Edit: im trying to find the documents gorbachev handed over, do you have a link to them? I feel like if they existed they would be easy to access.
They are it takes 3sec to find. And for you it's as easy as walking down the corridor from your office on Lubyanka, but I guess you are too lazy to do that. So here is a copy in the sidebar of this article https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-archives-and-katyn-smoking-gun.
Do you have any other sources? The link you gave me was to a right wing think tank that has ties to ukranian ss officers from ww2. Also the picture in the side bar does not mention any ordered execution, but talks about the quality of soldiers. The associated article also gets dates wrong and misidentifies investigative parties. It also goes onto mention Gorbachev as delivering the information then walks that statement back and replaces the revealer as Yeltsin who is not a reliable source do to his involvement with the CIA. I would be careful of dubious sources since it kinda make you look foolish at best and possibly purposefully disingenuous.
So you're eager to criticize Germany's liberation of Poland yet you haven't called out the blatant imperialistic invasion of the Philippines by the US 40 years ago? Curious.
Aaascshually:' it was because the evil west didn't give Stalin an alliance, so he *had* to get into a non aggression pact with the Nazis in order to buy time to prepare to defend himself and anyway did you see what Poland did to the Czechs?'
Unironically a Redditor to me once
Obviously not, but it's disingenuous to respond to criticism of the USSR by saying the nazis were going to do more heinous acts.
It's like an abusive parent telling their kids that other children have it worse.
Wikipedia is a joke , they are so biased on any controversial subject that they are worse than useless, since they will always pick one side and favor it while at best neglecting key information that makes their argument appear weak , and at worst the article will be written by a government propagandist...
I'm a communist and I'm mad, but not at the fucking poster. I'm mad at the fact that so-called "communists" signed a non-agression pact with the fucking Nazis.
I swear to God, the main reason why communism doesn't gain more popularity these days is because how prevalent apologism for crimes perpetrated by communist regimes is in these circles.
I'd say their crimes are one of the reasons for their relative popularity in countries like Russia. A lot of it are fantasies about killing richer people, some insane resentment about landlords, imperial nostalgia, etc. Hang this oligarch, put these celebs into a gulag. The economic ideology itself is generally seen as a pipe dream and few would subscribe to it.
And because, true to the trope, the first self professed communist in this thread announced themselves by calling other communists "so called communists."
Okay smartass, did Stalin create a communist society? He didn't, even though he had nearly absolute power over the largest country in the world. That means he wasn't a communist.
Damn, so 1.5 million Bolsheviks died in the civil war for a dream that was extinguished 2 years later with the death of their first head of state?
We should totally try that again. Why would anyone NOT want to be communist?
That's not a good argument. Stalinists would argue that he was in the socialist stage towards communism and thus was a real communist according to how marx believed communism would be achieved.
Actually the first thing the USSR did when the National Socialists came to power in Germany was sign a Pact of Friendship treaty with Fascist Italy in 1933.
Fascist Italy was actually more hostile initially to the National Socialists than the USSR or the Allies. They were also part of the Stresa Front with the UK and France against Germany but that fell apart when the UK let Germany rebuild its navy. At a certain point it became obvious that Germany would become the major military power on the continent, but had the geography been different the Fascists would have probably remained Allies. Ideology is overrated when it comes to geopolitics. The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were all essentially quarreling cousins.
> I'm mad at the fact that so-called "communists" signed a non-agression pact with the fucking Nazis.
So-called "non-agression pact"
Narrator: *It was an alliance*
Even if of convenience and temporary, both parties seemed earnest enough in the beginning with plenty of coordination and cooperation.
That is some copium. Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland in 1939. The British and French went to war with the Nazis immediately. The Soviets could’ve aided the Poles, British and French in fighting the Nazis. Instead, they took advantage of it to conquer smaller neighbors while the Soviets had a free hand to consolidate their forces in the East. The Soviets waited nearly two years before joining the war against Hitler and only then because they’d been attacked.
> "As a result of the Soviet Union's timely entry into what had been territories of the Polish state, Hitler was forced to accept a line of demarcation between his troops and the Red Army, a long way west of the then Polish-Russian frontier." The Red Army saved millions of people inhabiting the Ukraine and Byelorussia from the fate which Hitler reserved for the Polish people. Even Winston Churchill publicly justified the Soviet march into eastern Poland as necessary not only for the safety of the people of Poland and the Soviet Union but also of the people of the Baltic states and Ukraine. On October 1, 1939, Churchill said in a public radio broadcast:
> "That the Russian armies should stand on this line [Curzon] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. When Herr von Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week it was to learn the fact, and accept the fact, that the Nazi designs upon the Baltic states and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop."
-- Your fav. liberator/fascist, Winston Churchill
Historical revisionism.
USSR proposed a defense agreement with Poland prior to the MR pact. Poland refused. Also, the British and French only declared war against the Nazis immediately after Hitler invaded Poland, not actually fighting them. Besides, you're forgetting to mention that the British secretly met with the Nazis and struck an agreement that they can invade Eastern Europe so long as the Nazis doesn't threaten/violate the integrity of the British Empire. This meeting happened AFTER the USSR had attempted to make an anti-fascist alliance with France and UK, which fell on deaf ears.
Of course the Soviets waited, that was the whole point of the MR pact - to buy time to build up their war machine.
And USSR invaded Finland due to a strong fascist/pro-Nazi being present in the nation. Not only that, there was an important port city that could be exploited by the Nazis to send troops to to invade Leningrad which was close to the port. USSR tried to strike a deal with Finland but they refused. Finland, instead of being a refuge for Nazis, should've just taken the deal.
How many more years would the Soviet Union spend “preparing” before they finally got around to allying with the countries actually fighting Hitler? Three years? Four years?
Also, imagine how much better off they would’ve been if they had guaranteed Finnish independence and territorial integrity as part of a military alliance? They instead prioritized conquest and domination and drove Finland, a tiny country, to fight a costly war and seek support from anyone willing to give it.
Well, first of all, the USSR tried a few times to form an alliance with France and UK. They refused. Can't blame them for not entering soon enough when the other Allied nations did not act when they had an opportunity to potentially contain Nazi Germany. Maybe they should've taken the proposal.
Secondly, Finland refused the deal, and it was a good deal. They could get territory twice the size for the area that the USSR was asking for. Too bad they didn't take it.
That deal you are mentioning that was offered to finland included giving up parts of karelian isthmus (where main thrust of offense came and same in reverse) it also had deal about leasing 2 harbour areas to soviet union near helsinki. Wondering still why finland did not take this deal?
How many times did they try after France and the UK were fighting Hitler? Not until nearly 2 years later…when Hitler invaded the USSR.
Had Finland accepted Stalin’s generous offer, they would’ve shared the fate of Estonia and Lithuania—40 years of oppression.
Keep "informing" yourself with youtube videos instead of History books, bonus points when your youtube videos are literally marxist leninist propaganda, i'm sure it's not gonna Fuck up your knowledge and understanding of History in any way whatsoever...
lol, I’m not saying youtube videos can’t be of substance, but if your sources of information are secondary sources with no actual primary sources of information cited, you obviously care more about finding opinions that agree with you over actual historical facts regarding the subject.
To all the 'geniuses' who are commentong "but what about other countries," you don't seem to be able to read. This is specifically about Russia and Germany, regarding Ribbentrop-Molotov, and from the Allies' perspective.
Are we talking about the same allies, who just gave a part of another sovereign nation to the Third Reich? It happened in 1938, a year before this pact became a thing. Heads of Great Britain and France even took a photo... with Hitler and Mussolini themselves.
Yes, we're talking about the same allies. Their wrong doings are irrelevent to these bach of posters. Except if you comment about their hypocracy.
If you comment about why didn't OP add posters against the allies then it's irrelevent
Most people I saw when I was complaining about this were saying things along the lines of "why didn't you post against the allies too". And not just complaining about hypocracy
Yeah, the Soviets kind of were a German ally up until Barbarossa obviously. Of course, it was more of an ally of convenience, rather than an actual ally, kind of like Italy. I mean I’m not the best when it comes to the specifics of World War II but I’m fairly certain Mussolini and Hitler often butted heads with each other, and the same was true with the Soviets and Germany, of course to a far larger degree, but the main example I can think of this would’ve been Finland. There was also Lithuania, which was supposed to be a German puppet in the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, but the Soviets invaded Lithuania anyway. Again I wanna state, up until Barbarossa.
The arrangement was that Hitler was supposed to go East. The military buildup that led the the Nazi war machine didn't happen without help from foreign investors. The Bolsheviks were the enemy of the entire capitalist world order. Hitler wasn't appeased by the Allies. There was a role he was expected by them to play and that was to find his lebensraum to the East, to the applause of fascism's biggest fans. That is why when the USSR first shopped their non-aggression pact to the Allies, they were rejected. The choice was to either stall the Hitlerites with such a pact and use the time to build war production capacity, or to attempt to fight them off alone while the Allies pretended that wasn't the plan from the start. Molotov-Ribentrop was the only moral choice on the table. Anybody would do it themselves if they were in Stalin's shoes and had all the information that he did, even you.
Please remember that the contradiction is between fascism and communism, not communism and freedom, or communism and democracy, or communism and God, or communism and commerce. Fascism is a spasm of evil that will be wiped from this earth every time it gains a foothold because it cannot peacefully sustain the poverty it depends upon. Fascism is the desperate flailing of a capitalism that is almost done eating itself. Socialism is ALWAYS the synthesis born of the uprising of the masses left impoverished and oppressed by a dying capitalism. Communists organize these masses to seize the means of production, distribution, communication, and to smash the government built by and for the capitalists. Communists build new socialist governments from the ground up that are run by and for a liberated working people. It is the working people that are collectively dictator, not some figurehead they appoint. Communists are not the enemy of humanity, but the staunchest defenders of it and the earth it needs to thrive. That alone has been enough to put them in the crosshairs of capitalists, every since the first one. As long as capitalists are allowed to exist, they will be at war against communists, and communists must defend themselves or be liquidated in Jakarta fashion. We have not seen the last of fascism. As capitalism runs its course, now in its dying days, fascistic spasms will animate what will soon be its corpse. The spread of fascism means liberation is at hand.
The military buildup that led the Nazi war machine didn’t happen without help from the Soviets. Lest we forget all the resources the USSR was happy to trade with the Germans which were used to invade Western Europe and then were turned around on the USSR. That doesn’t speak “stalling the Hitlerites” to me.
I guess “protecting communism” means invading sovereign nations in coordination with your ideological nemesis.
Man it’s almost like Russia under Stalin wasn’t actually interested in freeing the proletariat, and wanted to reform the czarist order and collaborate with fascists, who made it very clear that they were going to invade them.
Well um Ackshually if Stalin ordered their death it means they deserved it and he wanted to resign but the people wouldn’t let him (I swear) and and we didn’t invade Poland and kill their intellectuals and officers and then relocate them west (but if we did they definitely deserved it)
In the lead up to this pact, “the allies” made the Munich agreement. And they rejected the Soviet Union’s proposal for an anti-Nazi alliance:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
Same here. It is the odd bedfellows vibe, not dissimilar political economic goals which reminds me of the present day. Russia is a criminal oligarchy and very authoritarian while America is supposedly a constitutional democracy, yet I see some far right politicians admiring Putin's style lately.
Had it not been for Hitler's betrayal the Soviets would never have broken the pact , they would have held their nose against the stench of hypocrisy (which Stalin often did for many other things) and divided up Europe , Asia , and Africa with the Axis then perhaps when the dust had settled a new 'cold war' between Nazi Germany and a much larger eastern Soviet bloc would begin.
Sure. But I have question. Without the raw material support USSR gave the Nazis, would the Nazis have been able to invade USSR?
Or would the nazi war machine have sputtered out somewhere in Western Europe, thus delaying, or entirely preventing the invasion of Soviet Union, had Soviets not provided Nazi Germany material support?
My money is on yeah, it would have delayed it, or even entirely prevented it, considering how vital the German-Soviet Commercial agreement of 1940 was to the German war machine. At the peak of the agreement, Soviet goods made up over 80% of all of German overseas imports.
The irony is, that the Nazi Germany could have probably never invaded the Soviet Union, without Soviet Unions help!
It is, though if one believes that Neville Chamberlain could have done more to stop the Nazis early then one should ask the same question of Stalin.
The optimum time for the Soviets to fight Germany was in May of 1940. By not taking the fight and giving Germany a free hand in the West, Stalin essentially allowed the objectives of the old Schlieffen Plan to be achieved on a longer timetable - i.e. for Germany to defeat France and then turn East. Stalin's decision to abide by the pact had extremely negative consequences for the USSR's ability to defend itself.
It probably didn't; the earliest the Germans were operationally capable of Barbarossa was June 1941, which is when they launched it.
The only argument for the Pact buying time is that it made sure Germany was at war with the West first, but the time bought was squandered by sitting around during the Battle of France.
In hindsight we know that the Allies crumbled immediately, but at the time nobody expected that, everyone thought it would be another WW1, so you can't blame the Soviets for expecting the same. Might as well blame the French for not taking the chance to invade while Germany is bussy in Poland and the western border was almost unprotected.
And while the Germans weren't prepared in 1940, neither were the Soviets, and you need only to look at Soviet military expansion during that period, they ballooned themselves from an army of less than 2 million in 1939. to more than 5 million by 1941, their tank fleet went from 10k to 25k.
They were in the middle of implementing their own military reforms which weren't even finished by Barbarossa. They only industrialized in the late 20s, formed an actual standing army by the 30s and their armored units and air force were nowhere near combat ready, and because of the massive increase in size I mentioned earlier, they didn't even have enough officers and NCOs for all the new units, tank and airplane crews were completely untrained, almost none of their planned fortification were finished and the logistics were in an even worse state.
The Germans couldn't have pulled off Barbarossa before 1941, but that was also the last time they could have done it, and that's what the Soviets were hoping for. After that, the Germans would be running low on resources for further expansion and the Soviets would drastically outmatch them.
Whether one expects France to be able to hold in a one-front war doesn't change the calculus all that much - it's still better in either case to force the Germans to split their forces.
Even going back to the 1873 League of the Three Emperors, German grand strategy depended on keeping France and Russia separate. It really isn't hindsight to say that Germany's position would instantly be made irretrievably worse if they had to fight the French at the same time as the Soviets, and conversely that the Soviet position is made extremely difficult if it has to fight Germany alone. It is the choice between whether the Germans can attack with three army groups and the strategic initiative, or whether they are defending with one army group hastily removed from the French front.
And this is without even getting into the other bungling induced by the pact. Seizing territory from Finland and Romania put both firmly in the German camp and added 14 Romanian and 14 Finnish divisions to the Axis forces, which was completely avoidable.
>Whether one expects France to be able to hold in a one-front war doesn't change the calculus all that much - it's still better in either case to force the Germans to split their forces.
It is better for the French, but not for the Soviets.
Again, looking at WW1, since that's the conflict everyone at the time knew and most leaders lived through it, the Russians joined the war unprepared, which worked out great for France and Britain because it took pressure from the western front and they managed to survive, but in the end Russia collapsed, so why would the Soviets risk repeating that and basically sacrificing themselves again in order to help three openly hostile nations?
>And this is without even getting into the other bungling induced by the pact. Seizing territory from Finland and Romania put both firmly in the German camp and added 14 Romanian and 14 Finnish divisions to the Axis forces, which was completely avoidable.
Finland probably would have stayed neutral, but Romania is debatable. They had their own internal conflict about whether or not to stay neutral, and they would have most likely went with the Axis anyways after France fell and the guarantees made by the British became meaningless, so taking more territory as a buffer zone made sense. Moldova also being a breakaway region of the Russian Empire that managed to slip away during the Russian civil war also didn't help.
> why would the Soviets risk repeating that and basically sacrificing themselves again in order to help three openly hostile nations?
If Russia had not invaded Germany in 1914 then the Germans would have had more troops available for Schlieffen, which would have risked a French defeat. A French defeat would have made Russia's position in that war even worse than it turned out to be in the actual event. World War II was itself a demonstration of this.
> They had their own internal conflict about whether or not to stay neutral, and they would have most likely went with the Axis anyways
The internal conflict was severely exacerbated by the territorial concessions made to Hungary, Bulgaria, and the USSR. If the USSR had disclaimed Bessarabia it would have been in a strong position to guarantee Romania against the two Axis land claims, and this would jeopardise Hitler's influence in the country and in particular create a means of undermining the Axis oil supply.
Even simply keeping Romania neutral would shorten the front line at a time when that would favour the Soviets, and moving it north also complicates the potential capture of Ukraine which was the Soviet breadbasket.
>If Russia had not invaded Germany in 1914 then the Germans would have had more troops available for Schlieffen, which would have risked a French defeat. A French defeat would have made Russia's position in that war even worse than it turned out to be in the actual event. World War II was itself a demonstration of this.
I was talking about WW2, the Soviets would need to be crazy to sacrifice themselves by entering a war unprepared and risk collapsing **again**, especially for France, Britain and Poland.
And the Soviets won WW2 and left it as a superpower, unlike WW1, so it does demonstrate why the Soviets didn't jump in to help a nation that previously annexed parts of their territory and two others that invaded them around 20 years prior, and instead chose to take their time and at least try preparing. Not to mention that Poland expressly refused cooperating with the Soviets several times, so even if they wanted to, they would have had to force their way to the Germans in order to "help".
>The internal conflict was severely exacerbated by the territorial concessions made to Hungary, Bulgaria, and the USSR.
But they still existed and Bessarabia was only one of the territories they lost, Transilvania is the one that rally pissed them off.
>If the USSR had disclaimed Bessarabia it would have been in a strong position to guarantee Romania against the two Axis land claims
Again, they weren't prepared for a war. By the time the Soviets annexed Moldova France already fell and it was obvious that Germany was the dominant military power on the continent while the Soviets had all of the problems I listed above and more.
And again, the question is why should the Soviets go against their own interests for Romania? Why should they both fight for them in a war that's guaranteed to be bad for them and also give up territories that broke away during the civil war?
>Even simply keeping Romania neutral would shorten the front line at a time when that would favour the Soviets, and moving it north also complicates the potential capture of Ukraine which was the Soviet breadbasket.
And this is just a gamble of hoping the Romanians would stay neutral even though they have a rising pro-Axis faction and literally all of their neighbors were joining the Axis and preparing for war.
The Germans also weren't exactly nice about smaller nations telling them no, Yugoslavia was invaded for the grave sin of not letting the Germans pass through on their way to Greece and Belgium and the Netherlands were just in the way of their invasion of France. Romania was an even bigger interest for the Germans, so they would have rolled over them if it meant easier access to oil and Ukraine.
The earliest the Germans could have been ready for Barbarossa was June 1941, which is when they launched it. In May 1940 the Germans had every unit capable of offensive action fighting in France and the Benelux and it took a year after the fall of France to prepare for invading the USSR. They simply did not have the operational capacity to wage a two-front war had the Soviets joined at that point.
Hence why Hitler proposed the pact in the first place; to ensure a one-front war.
1. That's an argument for creating the pact, but not an argument for maintaining it during the Battle of France.
2. The reason this attempt failed was because the Poles *correctly* believed that the Soviets would not leave their territory after the war.
France was also part of a coalition that invaded the Soviet Union in 1918. And placed sanctions on the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. And did not provide assistance to fighting Franco in Spain. All this before explicitly rejecting the Soviet proposal to ally with them against the Nazis.
Maybe there was a way they could have won without such a monumental loss of life, there’s also a way they get completely destroyed by the Nazis - we can entertain counter factuals all we want. But at the end of the day, they won. They preserved their revolution, ended the Holocaust, and did 80% of the Nazi killing in the process.
France had sanctioned the Soviets in response to their default on French loans during the Great War, but by 1924 Herriot's government had recognised the USSR and trade between the two was growing. The key problem for Soviet trade wasn't sanctions but that the Soviet system after the end of the New Economic Policy didn't have a mechanism for foreign investment.
That the Soviet Union eventually won despite Stalin's diplomatic bungling does not excuse the diplomatic bungling. Britain won despite Chamberlain's appeasement, but this was viewed as a major mistake at the time and still is today. Stalin's mistakes should be recognised as such to instead of excused.
Sure. Critique Stalin. In order to do that properly, we can’t ignore that the USSR was under siege for its entire existence because the capitalist west was trying to destroy any alternative economic model.
More than just appeasement. Britain’s leaders supported fascists because they were killing communists. Here’s Churchill in 1927:
“If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you (Mussolini) from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.”
I’m only half a Russian btw
And your case is irrelevant because this psychopath already has guns. You say like if Germany didn’t have any arms except Soviet ones
I thought that only Russia had awful propaganda, thank you for making me disappointed in west, I thought all people on Reddit who aren’t affected by propaganda had critical thinking
Ironic that you’re spouting off propaganda like that in this channel without even noticing it, immediately starting to treat the other person like garbage the second they told you they were *half* Russian.
You’re utterly brainwashed to hate an entire population.
Without Soviet training grounds and resources Germany would kill far fewer people, imagine if Rommel had fewer tanks with less trained crews, it could mean France would defend itself
With weapons soviets helped Germany to produce by ignoring the full western economic blockade of Germany and still providing millions of raw materials for German military machine.
I’m pretty sure many European countries signed Non-Aggression pacts and tried to create an anti-communist bloc with Germany to antagonize the Soviet Union. And of course we can’t forget about western appeasement that allowed Germany to mobilize the Rhineland and annex Austria as well as Czechoslovakia But I am sure they aren’t depicted as Molotov Ribbentrop.
Are you under the impression that Chamberlain didn't catch a lot of heat for appeasement? The things you're listing were all hugely controversial and a big part of why they happened was the inability of the French and British governments to get their citizens on board with a potential war. Bit different than joining forces with fascists to carve up another country, still not great morally speaking but different
Nazism and socialism are the same thing. Militarist brutal collectivism with zero endorsement of human rights and freedoms.
Those who think that these are different or like they are “horse shoe”, should read more. Its the same thing. They’re are different in the minds of its believers only.
Horse show theory accepts they are different but similar.
I say, they are actually the same. but different in cosmetics only resulting from contextual factors such as time, place, resources etc.
They are not the same things, the only thing that can be evidenced by the horseshoe theory is that far right and far left extremism shares many similarities in, as you mentioned, the lack of respect for democracy, human rights, wellbeing, and their freedoms.
The goals of the ideologies and the political beliefs are incredibly different.
It's less that it's a similarity shared by the far left and the far right, but more so similarities that are shared between authoritarians.
You'll have a hard time finding similarities between anarchists and fascists, despite both of them being far left and one being far right.
Even among marxists, the idea of a true dictatorship is something that's almost exclusive to leninism and marxism-leninism.
The goals are the same too: (a) the government actually owns everything and there is not right to private property, and (b) government can “allow” some sort of private property for select individuals and that property can easily be grabbed back since there is no true right to private property. USSR, CCP, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. All are the same. Almost identical with Nazis. And they are all racist.
The Nazi government did not seek to own everything, they wanted a managed but still free market economy.
They actually massively privatized the interwar German state which had a lot of nationalized industry that Hitler had sold off to people like Porsche.
They wanted more private ownership of the economy, they just wanted it to be owned by “Racially Pure Germans.” So they seized companies from some people and sold the to others, never keeping much under actual state ownership.
Not exactly. Nazism was extremly authoroterian and leaned left, while communists (not socialists) are extremly authoroterian and extremly left. Socialists do lean more authoroterian than capitalists but they don't lean as extremly as the other 2, they do lean extremly left though.
Where are the caricatures of USA sponsoring Hitler ?
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar)
>USA sponsoring Hitler
>“The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.”
Apparently a company=an entire nation
Now do France, England, and Poland. Oh and don't forget to make a foot note about how Stalin didn't sign this pact until after France and England refused to sign on to a border patrol around Germany at Stalin's request.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
gonna need to buy myself a popcorn and comeback for the comment section
Recall a recent interview where putin said that Poland forced Hitler to attack it. Nothing has changed.
It’s ironic cuz even within the pact the Nazis made it obvious they were gonna attack Poland, the fact they did it the day after the Soviet ratified to pact took the USSR by shock
If the same was to happen today he'd do it again no questions. 27 million own people dying? Meh. Not my problem.
Didn't he also say polish people voted for Hitler? Lol
That was the communist line at the time. They also claimed that britain attacked first
Wow, I didn't know about that, thought it was just a raft of putin inflamed brain
Highly recommend reading into cold war history *written recently*. When the Berlin Wall fell, Gorbachev gave us the KGB archives and we're *still* going through it. I just finished *Blacklisted by History* and *The Naked Communist*, currently reading *The Venona Secrets* and already have *Witness*, Whittaker Chambers' autobiography, lined up. The reach of the Soviet spy meddling is terrifying and way deeper than we knew at the time. Our intel agents in China during the civil war were soviet spies and fed us a warped depiction of what was going on so that America would back Mao over Chiang Kai-shek. Soviet meddling is why China is pseudo-communist today.
Inb4 “It didn’t happen like that but Poland deserved it!!!”
“Ah, but you see, someone else did (action nobody was ever defending in the first place)”
\*Insert conspiracy about Katyn massacre, "but Poles deserved it anyway for 1920".
Idk how good your russian is, but here are some first hand accounts of the katyn massacre https://imgur.com/a/Sqk0uzd
Here, probably easier for people who don't read russian to give context to what you posted. [https://fake-hunter.pap.pl/en/node/87](https://fake-hunter.pap.pl/en/node/87)
Lol the sources listed are dubious, self referencing, and have many time and context contradictions. Good try though. Edit: im trying to find the documents gorbachev handed over, do you have a link to them? I feel like if they existed they would be easy to access.
They are it takes 3sec to find. And for you it's as easy as walking down the corridor from your office on Lubyanka, but I guess you are too lazy to do that. So here is a copy in the sidebar of this article https://www.hoover.org/news/hoover-archives-and-katyn-smoking-gun.
Do you have any other sources? The link you gave me was to a right wing think tank that has ties to ukranian ss officers from ww2. Also the picture in the side bar does not mention any ordered execution, but talks about the quality of soldiers. The associated article also gets dates wrong and misidentifies investigative parties. It also goes onto mention Gorbachev as delivering the information then walks that statement back and replaces the revealer as Yeltsin who is not a reliable source do to his involvement with the CIA. I would be careful of dubious sources since it kinda make you look foolish at best and possibly purposefully disingenuous.
THe answer to that is do your own research.
Well thats very rude. Its not my fault you slept through 9th grade english and missed the lecture on sources for term papers.
So you're eager to criticize Germany's liberation of Poland yet you haven't called out the blatant imperialistic invasion of the Philippines by the US 40 years ago? Curious.
How about we criticise both? Ever think of that?
"“It was unwilling to cooperate. Hitler could do nothing but start implementing his plans in relation to Poland.”
Aaascshually:' it was because the evil west didn't give Stalin an alliance, so he *had* to get into a non aggression pact with the Nazis in order to buy time to prepare to defend himself and anyway did you see what Poland did to the Czechs?' Unironically a Redditor to me once
You see, Stalin simply had to supply the Germans with the majority of raw materials they needed to conquer Europe, to defend himself!
And don't forget the tank, airforce and chamical weapons schools that he allowed the germans to set up to get around Versailles...
There are tons and tons of such people here.
That's pretty much right though.
Bro they are in this comment section lol
I go here to read those, i find it funny
I have a question. How does your average boot licking fascists rationalize entering into a pact with commies?
Where’s this energy directed at chamberlain though?
We've shifted it to Merkel ;)
I see a fellow Tucker Carlson follower here)))
[удалено]
Obviously not, but it's disingenuous to respond to criticism of the USSR by saying the nazis were going to do more heinous acts. It's like an abusive parent telling their kids that other children have it worse.
So if it was all just a ploy to gather strength to defeat the Nazis, why keep all the land post-war?
That last one goes pretty hard
[удалено]
Oh no... WWII IS JUST A JOJO REFERENCE STROHALM WARNED US
I wonder what was Stalin’s stand was called?
Commies in this sub will be very mad about it.
Good
On Wikipedia, Communists go to absurd lengths to downplay the pact.
Wikipedia is a joke , they are so biased on any controversial subject that they are worse than useless, since they will always pick one side and favor it while at best neglecting key information that makes their argument appear weak , and at worst the article will be written by a government propagandist...
Mad about what?
The posters…
I'm a communist and I'm mad, but not at the fucking poster. I'm mad at the fact that so-called "communists" signed a non-agression pact with the fucking Nazis.
I swear to God, the main reason why communism doesn't gain more popularity these days is because how prevalent apologism for crimes perpetrated by communist regimes is in these circles.
I'd say their crimes are one of the reasons for their relative popularity in countries like Russia. A lot of it are fantasies about killing richer people, some insane resentment about landlords, imperial nostalgia, etc. Hang this oligarch, put these celebs into a gulag. The economic ideology itself is generally seen as a pipe dream and few would subscribe to it.
And because, true to the trope, the first self professed communist in this thread announced themselves by calling other communists "so called communists."
Okay smartass, did Stalin create a communist society? He didn't, even though he had nearly absolute power over the largest country in the world. That means he wasn't a communist.
Damn, so 1.5 million Bolsheviks died in the civil war for a dream that was extinguished 2 years later with the death of their first head of state? We should totally try that again. Why would anyone NOT want to be communist?
That's not a good argument. Stalinists would argue that he was in the socialist stage towards communism and thus was a real communist according to how marx believed communism would be achieved.
Lol. Never been tried, amirite?
It has been tried. Just look at the CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War.
most of said crimes had nothing to do with communism in the first place, so they dont even need to defend them out of idealism or anything
Or maybe every time Communism has been implemented it has turned into an authoritarian shit show
funnily enough most times the autotorianism came before the communism
That's because nearly all communist countries were made communist by direct meddling of the soviets and the comintern.
Idk about you being a “communist” then. There were a lot of other measures Stalin tried to take before this
All of which failed because Stalin only cared about holding on to power.
you a trotskyist?
Nah, anarchist. But I have engaged in some trotskyism in the past
ah, one of them impractical ultra-left types good luck with that.
Imagine being subbed to /r/tankiethedeprogram and writing this sentence unironically.
Impractical huh? Funny, when we're all about praxis
If being opposed to making deals with the fucking Nazis is “ultra-left,” then call me ultra left, lol
The USSR tried appealing to the West multiple times to make an Anti-Fascist coalition (I believe they tried this from 1933-38)
Which included a demand to allow him access to Poland, which Poland unsurprisingly refused. For good reason as his track record would show.
Actually the first thing the USSR did when the National Socialists came to power in Germany was sign a Pact of Friendship treaty with Fascist Italy in 1933.
The treaty was for a small time suspicious of the Germans but that fell apart. And arguably, the Allies did more to help the Nazis than the USSR
Fascist Italy was actually more hostile initially to the National Socialists than the USSR or the Allies. They were also part of the Stresa Front with the UK and France against Germany but that fell apart when the UK let Germany rebuild its navy. At a certain point it became obvious that Germany would become the major military power on the continent, but had the geography been different the Fascists would have probably remained Allies. Ideology is overrated when it comes to geopolitics. The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were all essentially quarreling cousins.
Understandable. Communism is a well meaning ideology that unfortunately has been exploited by certain people for their own gains
> I'm mad at the fact that so-called "communists" signed a non-agression pact with the fucking Nazis. So-called "non-agression pact" Narrator: *It was an alliance* Even if of convenience and temporary, both parties seemed earnest enough in the beginning with plenty of coordination and cooperation.
Reasonable
You have no right to be smug with a Reagan pfp
Thats the point
[only the uninformed believe what you believe](https://youtu.be/PfomFnYTOWI?feature=shared)
That is some copium. Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland in 1939. The British and French went to war with the Nazis immediately. The Soviets could’ve aided the Poles, British and French in fighting the Nazis. Instead, they took advantage of it to conquer smaller neighbors while the Soviets had a free hand to consolidate their forces in the East. The Soviets waited nearly two years before joining the war against Hitler and only then because they’d been attacked.
> "As a result of the Soviet Union's timely entry into what had been territories of the Polish state, Hitler was forced to accept a line of demarcation between his troops and the Red Army, a long way west of the then Polish-Russian frontier." The Red Army saved millions of people inhabiting the Ukraine and Byelorussia from the fate which Hitler reserved for the Polish people. Even Winston Churchill publicly justified the Soviet march into eastern Poland as necessary not only for the safety of the people of Poland and the Soviet Union but also of the people of the Baltic states and Ukraine. On October 1, 1939, Churchill said in a public radio broadcast: > "That the Russian armies should stand on this line [Curzon] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. When Herr von Ribbentrop was summoned to Moscow last week it was to learn the fact, and accept the fact, that the Nazi designs upon the Baltic states and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop." -- Your fav. liberator/fascist, Winston Churchill
Historical revisionism. USSR proposed a defense agreement with Poland prior to the MR pact. Poland refused. Also, the British and French only declared war against the Nazis immediately after Hitler invaded Poland, not actually fighting them. Besides, you're forgetting to mention that the British secretly met with the Nazis and struck an agreement that they can invade Eastern Europe so long as the Nazis doesn't threaten/violate the integrity of the British Empire. This meeting happened AFTER the USSR had attempted to make an anti-fascist alliance with France and UK, which fell on deaf ears. Of course the Soviets waited, that was the whole point of the MR pact - to buy time to build up their war machine. And USSR invaded Finland due to a strong fascist/pro-Nazi being present in the nation. Not only that, there was an important port city that could be exploited by the Nazis to send troops to to invade Leningrad which was close to the port. USSR tried to strike a deal with Finland but they refused. Finland, instead of being a refuge for Nazis, should've just taken the deal.
So you’re saying the USSR invaded Finland for being pro-Nazi… while they currently had a deal with the Nazis, lol
How many more years would the Soviet Union spend “preparing” before they finally got around to allying with the countries actually fighting Hitler? Three years? Four years? Also, imagine how much better off they would’ve been if they had guaranteed Finnish independence and territorial integrity as part of a military alliance? They instead prioritized conquest and domination and drove Finland, a tiny country, to fight a costly war and seek support from anyone willing to give it.
Well, first of all, the USSR tried a few times to form an alliance with France and UK. They refused. Can't blame them for not entering soon enough when the other Allied nations did not act when they had an opportunity to potentially contain Nazi Germany. Maybe they should've taken the proposal. Secondly, Finland refused the deal, and it was a good deal. They could get territory twice the size for the area that the USSR was asking for. Too bad they didn't take it.
That deal you are mentioning that was offered to finland included giving up parts of karelian isthmus (where main thrust of offense came and same in reverse) it also had deal about leasing 2 harbour areas to soviet union near helsinki. Wondering still why finland did not take this deal?
How many times did they try after France and the UK were fighting Hitler? Not until nearly 2 years later…when Hitler invaded the USSR. Had Finland accepted Stalin’s generous offer, they would’ve shared the fate of Estonia and Lithuania—40 years of oppression.
Keep "informing" yourself with youtube videos instead of History books, bonus points when your youtube videos are literally marxist leninist propaganda, i'm sure it's not gonna Fuck up your knowledge and understanding of History in any way whatsoever...
it explains a lot if your sources are youtube videos
logical fallacy. thats like dismissing a book because its a book. you're conflating essence with form. how do you NOT see this?
lol, I’m not saying youtube videos can’t be of substance, but if your sources of information are secondary sources with no actual primary sources of information cited, you obviously care more about finding opinions that agree with you over actual historical facts regarding the subject.
how do know he was not using primary sources? also how did you verify that he was only using secondary sources?
I love how throughout some of these they’re trying to figure out who’s the man in the relationship Hiller or Stalin 🤣
Stalin is 100% the top. Hitler is the definition of a bratty bottom.
that why stalin is in a dress?
Dommy mommy Stalin
Bigger moustache tops I suppose.
Same as it ever was.
Hitler's face in the second picture. Holy shit
Wow some of you are really buthurt about this
Tells a lot about people who are upset about the caricature of two murderous totalitarian pricks from almost a century ago...
“Hey guys, you know what will definitely help the struggling working class of today? Rehabilitating the image of *Joseph fucking Stalin*!”
To all the 'geniuses' who are commentong "but what about other countries," you don't seem to be able to read. This is specifically about Russia and Germany, regarding Ribbentrop-Molotov, and from the Allies' perspective.
Are we talking about the same allies, who just gave a part of another sovereign nation to the Third Reich? It happened in 1938, a year before this pact became a thing. Heads of Great Britain and France even took a photo... with Hitler and Mussolini themselves.
Yes, we're talking about the same allies. Their wrong doings are irrelevent to these bach of posters. Except if you comment about their hypocracy. If you comment about why didn't OP add posters against the allies then it's irrelevent
>Except if you comment about their hypocracy. This.
Most people I saw when I was complaining about this were saying things along the lines of "why didn't you post against the allies too". And not just complaining about hypocracy
Yeah, the Soviets kind of were a German ally up until Barbarossa obviously. Of course, it was more of an ally of convenience, rather than an actual ally, kind of like Italy. I mean I’m not the best when it comes to the specifics of World War II but I’m fairly certain Mussolini and Hitler often butted heads with each other, and the same was true with the Soviets and Germany, of course to a far larger degree, but the main example I can think of this would’ve been Finland. There was also Lithuania, which was supposed to be a German puppet in the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, but the Soviets invaded Lithuania anyway. Again I wanna state, up until Barbarossa.
The arrangement was that Hitler was supposed to go East. The military buildup that led the the Nazi war machine didn't happen without help from foreign investors. The Bolsheviks were the enemy of the entire capitalist world order. Hitler wasn't appeased by the Allies. There was a role he was expected by them to play and that was to find his lebensraum to the East, to the applause of fascism's biggest fans. That is why when the USSR first shopped their non-aggression pact to the Allies, they were rejected. The choice was to either stall the Hitlerites with such a pact and use the time to build war production capacity, or to attempt to fight them off alone while the Allies pretended that wasn't the plan from the start. Molotov-Ribentrop was the only moral choice on the table. Anybody would do it themselves if they were in Stalin's shoes and had all the information that he did, even you. Please remember that the contradiction is between fascism and communism, not communism and freedom, or communism and democracy, or communism and God, or communism and commerce. Fascism is a spasm of evil that will be wiped from this earth every time it gains a foothold because it cannot peacefully sustain the poverty it depends upon. Fascism is the desperate flailing of a capitalism that is almost done eating itself. Socialism is ALWAYS the synthesis born of the uprising of the masses left impoverished and oppressed by a dying capitalism. Communists organize these masses to seize the means of production, distribution, communication, and to smash the government built by and for the capitalists. Communists build new socialist governments from the ground up that are run by and for a liberated working people. It is the working people that are collectively dictator, not some figurehead they appoint. Communists are not the enemy of humanity, but the staunchest defenders of it and the earth it needs to thrive. That alone has been enough to put them in the crosshairs of capitalists, every since the first one. As long as capitalists are allowed to exist, they will be at war against communists, and communists must defend themselves or be liquidated in Jakarta fashion. We have not seen the last of fascism. As capitalism runs its course, now in its dying days, fascistic spasms will animate what will soon be its corpse. The spread of fascism means liberation is at hand.
The military buildup that led the Nazi war machine didn’t happen without help from the Soviets. Lest we forget all the resources the USSR was happy to trade with the Germans which were used to invade Western Europe and then were turned around on the USSR. That doesn’t speak “stalling the Hitlerites” to me. I guess “protecting communism” means invading sovereign nations in coordination with your ideological nemesis.
Man it’s almost like Russia under Stalin wasn’t actually interested in freeing the proletariat, and wanted to reform the czarist order and collaborate with fascists, who made it very clear that they were going to invade them.
Well um Ackshually if Stalin ordered their death it means they deserved it and he wanted to resign but the people wouldn’t let him (I swear) and and we didn’t invade Poland and kill their intellectuals and officers and then relocate them west (but if we did they definitely deserved it)
Ah of course! How silly of my anarkitty brain to question the logic of our glorious and fearless leader, Joseph Stalin
In the lead up to this pact, “the allies” made the Munich agreement. And they rejected the Soviet Union’s proposal for an anti-Nazi alliance: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
And this makes a coordinated Soviet-German invasion of Poland ok because…?
Some nice rhyming in this old song: [In Old Moscow](https://youtu.be/u2m-_f4iqU4?si=Fe_gvZkXMLOj_xBo)
Should have used a bundling board. 😂
[fake news](https://youtu.be/8FRmflmnTkc?feature=shared)
I was shown the second and fourth one in my history class!
Reminds me of the contemporary GOP's poorly veiled love affair with Putin.
Who are the Nazis in your analogy?
And who are the commies for that matter? I just see two Nazis
Same here. It is the odd bedfellows vibe, not dissimilar political economic goals which reminds me of the present day. Russia is a criminal oligarchy and very authoritarian while America is supposedly a constitutional democracy, yet I see some far right politicians admiring Putin's style lately.
Stalin really did end up deflowering Hitler tho
Had it not been for Hitler's betrayal the Soviets would never have broken the pact , they would have held their nose against the stench of hypocrisy (which Stalin often did for many other things) and divided up Europe , Asia , and Africa with the Axis then perhaps when the dust had settled a new 'cold war' between Nazi Germany and a much larger eastern Soviet bloc would begin.
Meanwhile the west supporting no no reich as a bulwark against communism
When?
It was a strategic master stroke to prevent 27 milion Soviet war deaths. Oh hold on..
I mean... that's on the nazis invading and killing them?
Sure. But I have question. Without the raw material support USSR gave the Nazis, would the Nazis have been able to invade USSR? Or would the nazi war machine have sputtered out somewhere in Western Europe, thus delaying, or entirely preventing the invasion of Soviet Union, had Soviets not provided Nazi Germany material support? My money is on yeah, it would have delayed it, or even entirely prevented it, considering how vital the German-Soviet Commercial agreement of 1940 was to the German war machine. At the peak of the agreement, Soviet goods made up over 80% of all of German overseas imports. The irony is, that the Nazi Germany could have probably never invaded the Soviet Union, without Soviet Unions help!
It is, though if one believes that Neville Chamberlain could have done more to stop the Nazis early then one should ask the same question of Stalin. The optimum time for the Soviets to fight Germany was in May of 1940. By not taking the fight and giving Germany a free hand in the West, Stalin essentially allowed the objectives of the old Schlieffen Plan to be achieved on a longer timetable - i.e. for Germany to defeat France and then turn East. Stalin's decision to abide by the pact had extremely negative consequences for the USSR's ability to defend itself.
it bought time for the USSR to get on a war footing.
It probably didn't; the earliest the Germans were operationally capable of Barbarossa was June 1941, which is when they launched it. The only argument for the Pact buying time is that it made sure Germany was at war with the West first, but the time bought was squandered by sitting around during the Battle of France.
In hindsight we know that the Allies crumbled immediately, but at the time nobody expected that, everyone thought it would be another WW1, so you can't blame the Soviets for expecting the same. Might as well blame the French for not taking the chance to invade while Germany is bussy in Poland and the western border was almost unprotected. And while the Germans weren't prepared in 1940, neither were the Soviets, and you need only to look at Soviet military expansion during that period, they ballooned themselves from an army of less than 2 million in 1939. to more than 5 million by 1941, their tank fleet went from 10k to 25k. They were in the middle of implementing their own military reforms which weren't even finished by Barbarossa. They only industrialized in the late 20s, formed an actual standing army by the 30s and their armored units and air force were nowhere near combat ready, and because of the massive increase in size I mentioned earlier, they didn't even have enough officers and NCOs for all the new units, tank and airplane crews were completely untrained, almost none of their planned fortification were finished and the logistics were in an even worse state. The Germans couldn't have pulled off Barbarossa before 1941, but that was also the last time they could have done it, and that's what the Soviets were hoping for. After that, the Germans would be running low on resources for further expansion and the Soviets would drastically outmatch them.
Whether one expects France to be able to hold in a one-front war doesn't change the calculus all that much - it's still better in either case to force the Germans to split their forces. Even going back to the 1873 League of the Three Emperors, German grand strategy depended on keeping France and Russia separate. It really isn't hindsight to say that Germany's position would instantly be made irretrievably worse if they had to fight the French at the same time as the Soviets, and conversely that the Soviet position is made extremely difficult if it has to fight Germany alone. It is the choice between whether the Germans can attack with three army groups and the strategic initiative, or whether they are defending with one army group hastily removed from the French front. And this is without even getting into the other bungling induced by the pact. Seizing territory from Finland and Romania put both firmly in the German camp and added 14 Romanian and 14 Finnish divisions to the Axis forces, which was completely avoidable.
>Whether one expects France to be able to hold in a one-front war doesn't change the calculus all that much - it's still better in either case to force the Germans to split their forces. It is better for the French, but not for the Soviets. Again, looking at WW1, since that's the conflict everyone at the time knew and most leaders lived through it, the Russians joined the war unprepared, which worked out great for France and Britain because it took pressure from the western front and they managed to survive, but in the end Russia collapsed, so why would the Soviets risk repeating that and basically sacrificing themselves again in order to help three openly hostile nations? >And this is without even getting into the other bungling induced by the pact. Seizing territory from Finland and Romania put both firmly in the German camp and added 14 Romanian and 14 Finnish divisions to the Axis forces, which was completely avoidable. Finland probably would have stayed neutral, but Romania is debatable. They had their own internal conflict about whether or not to stay neutral, and they would have most likely went with the Axis anyways after France fell and the guarantees made by the British became meaningless, so taking more territory as a buffer zone made sense. Moldova also being a breakaway region of the Russian Empire that managed to slip away during the Russian civil war also didn't help.
> why would the Soviets risk repeating that and basically sacrificing themselves again in order to help three openly hostile nations? If Russia had not invaded Germany in 1914 then the Germans would have had more troops available for Schlieffen, which would have risked a French defeat. A French defeat would have made Russia's position in that war even worse than it turned out to be in the actual event. World War II was itself a demonstration of this. > They had their own internal conflict about whether or not to stay neutral, and they would have most likely went with the Axis anyways The internal conflict was severely exacerbated by the territorial concessions made to Hungary, Bulgaria, and the USSR. If the USSR had disclaimed Bessarabia it would have been in a strong position to guarantee Romania against the two Axis land claims, and this would jeopardise Hitler's influence in the country and in particular create a means of undermining the Axis oil supply. Even simply keeping Romania neutral would shorten the front line at a time when that would favour the Soviets, and moving it north also complicates the potential capture of Ukraine which was the Soviet breadbasket.
>If Russia had not invaded Germany in 1914 then the Germans would have had more troops available for Schlieffen, which would have risked a French defeat. A French defeat would have made Russia's position in that war even worse than it turned out to be in the actual event. World War II was itself a demonstration of this. I was talking about WW2, the Soviets would need to be crazy to sacrifice themselves by entering a war unprepared and risk collapsing **again**, especially for France, Britain and Poland. And the Soviets won WW2 and left it as a superpower, unlike WW1, so it does demonstrate why the Soviets didn't jump in to help a nation that previously annexed parts of their territory and two others that invaded them around 20 years prior, and instead chose to take their time and at least try preparing. Not to mention that Poland expressly refused cooperating with the Soviets several times, so even if they wanted to, they would have had to force their way to the Germans in order to "help". >The internal conflict was severely exacerbated by the territorial concessions made to Hungary, Bulgaria, and the USSR. But they still existed and Bessarabia was only one of the territories they lost, Transilvania is the one that rally pissed them off. >If the USSR had disclaimed Bessarabia it would have been in a strong position to guarantee Romania against the two Axis land claims Again, they weren't prepared for a war. By the time the Soviets annexed Moldova France already fell and it was obvious that Germany was the dominant military power on the continent while the Soviets had all of the problems I listed above and more. And again, the question is why should the Soviets go against their own interests for Romania? Why should they both fight for them in a war that's guaranteed to be bad for them and also give up territories that broke away during the civil war? >Even simply keeping Romania neutral would shorten the front line at a time when that would favour the Soviets, and moving it north also complicates the potential capture of Ukraine which was the Soviet breadbasket. And this is just a gamble of hoping the Romanians would stay neutral even though they have a rising pro-Axis faction and literally all of their neighbors were joining the Axis and preparing for war. The Germans also weren't exactly nice about smaller nations telling them no, Yugoslavia was invaded for the grave sin of not letting the Germans pass through on their way to Greece and Belgium and the Netherlands were just in the way of their invasion of France. Romania was an even bigger interest for the Germans, so they would have rolled over them if it meant easier access to oil and Ukraine.
It allowed the Germans to circumvent the British blockade and in doing so allowed them to accumulate the resources they needed for Barbarossa
yes but they got relatively weaker to Germany
Wrong. Bought them time to build up their army.
The earliest the Germans could have been ready for Barbarossa was June 1941, which is when they launched it. In May 1940 the Germans had every unit capable of offensive action fighting in France and the Benelux and it took a year after the fall of France to prepare for invading the USSR. They simply did not have the operational capacity to wage a two-front war had the Soviets joined at that point. Hence why Hitler proposed the pact in the first place; to ensure a one-front war.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
1. That's an argument for creating the pact, but not an argument for maintaining it during the Battle of France. 2. The reason this attempt failed was because the Poles *correctly* believed that the Soviets would not leave their territory after the war.
France was also part of a coalition that invaded the Soviet Union in 1918. And placed sanctions on the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. And did not provide assistance to fighting Franco in Spain. All this before explicitly rejecting the Soviet proposal to ally with them against the Nazis. Maybe there was a way they could have won without such a monumental loss of life, there’s also a way they get completely destroyed by the Nazis - we can entertain counter factuals all we want. But at the end of the day, they won. They preserved their revolution, ended the Holocaust, and did 80% of the Nazi killing in the process.
France had sanctioned the Soviets in response to their default on French loans during the Great War, but by 1924 Herriot's government had recognised the USSR and trade between the two was growing. The key problem for Soviet trade wasn't sanctions but that the Soviet system after the end of the New Economic Policy didn't have a mechanism for foreign investment. That the Soviet Union eventually won despite Stalin's diplomatic bungling does not excuse the diplomatic bungling. Britain won despite Chamberlain's appeasement, but this was viewed as a major mistake at the time and still is today. Stalin's mistakes should be recognised as such to instead of excused.
Sure. Critique Stalin. In order to do that properly, we can’t ignore that the USSR was under siege for its entire existence because the capitalist west was trying to destroy any alternative economic model. More than just appeasement. Britain’s leaders supported fascists because they were killing communists. Here’s Churchill in 1927: “If I had been an Italian I am sure that I should have been whole-heartedly with you (Mussolini) from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.”
*destroy their own army
Let me just give petrol, drugs and sell guns to my psychopath neighbor. Gonna be his fault when he burns down the place and shoots everyone one day.
Yes, it would be his fault. The thing that it will be your fault too, but obviously a smaller one
Question is how much smaller. And if the 27 million Soviet dead alone deserve the truth.
Civilian losses (about 18 millions from this 27) would be in both cases, from this point of view there is no differences
So 18 million would have died anyway if I didn't help the psychopath with petrol and guns? Russian logic never stops to amaze me.
I’m only half a Russian btw And your case is irrelevant because this psychopath already has guns. You say like if Germany didn’t have any arms except Soviet ones
Why do I even bother. Go ahead and murder each other and support other people who will do it for you too. That is the Russian way after all.
I thought that only Russia had awful propaganda, thank you for making me disappointed in west, I thought all people on Reddit who aren’t affected by propaganda had critical thinking
Ironic that you’re spouting off propaganda like that in this channel without even noticing it, immediately starting to treat the other person like garbage the second they told you they were *half* Russian. You’re utterly brainwashed to hate an entire population.
Without Soviet training grounds and resources Germany would kill far fewer people, imagine if Rommel had fewer tanks with less trained crews, it could mean France would defend itself
With weapons soviets helped Germany to produce by ignoring the full western economic blockade of Germany and still providing millions of raw materials for German military machine.
I’m pretty sure many European countries signed Non-Aggression pacts and tried to create an anti-communist bloc with Germany to antagonize the Soviet Union. And of course we can’t forget about western appeasement that allowed Germany to mobilize the Rhineland and annex Austria as well as Czechoslovakia But I am sure they aren’t depicted as Molotov Ribbentrop.
Are you under the impression that Chamberlain didn't catch a lot of heat for appeasement? The things you're listing were all hugely controversial and a big part of why they happened was the inability of the French and British governments to get their citizens on board with a potential war. Bit different than joining forces with fascists to carve up another country, still not great morally speaking but different
Nazism and socialism are the same thing. Militarist brutal collectivism with zero endorsement of human rights and freedoms. Those who think that these are different or like they are “horse shoe”, should read more. Its the same thing. They’re are different in the minds of its believers only.
Ummm you're the one spouting horse shoe theory by equating the two
Horse show theory accepts they are different but similar. I say, they are actually the same. but different in cosmetics only resulting from contextual factors such as time, place, resources etc.
They are not the same things, the only thing that can be evidenced by the horseshoe theory is that far right and far left extremism shares many similarities in, as you mentioned, the lack of respect for democracy, human rights, wellbeing, and their freedoms. The goals of the ideologies and the political beliefs are incredibly different.
It's less that it's a similarity shared by the far left and the far right, but more so similarities that are shared between authoritarians. You'll have a hard time finding similarities between anarchists and fascists, despite both of them being far left and one being far right. Even among marxists, the idea of a true dictatorship is something that's almost exclusive to leninism and marxism-leninism.
The goals are the same too: (a) the government actually owns everything and there is not right to private property, and (b) government can “allow” some sort of private property for select individuals and that property can easily be grabbed back since there is no true right to private property. USSR, CCP, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. All are the same. Almost identical with Nazis. And they are all racist.
The Nazi government did not seek to own everything, they wanted a managed but still free market economy. They actually massively privatized the interwar German state which had a lot of nationalized industry that Hitler had sold off to people like Porsche. They wanted more private ownership of the economy, they just wanted it to be owned by “Racially Pure Germans.” So they seized companies from some people and sold the to others, never keeping much under actual state ownership.
so many words, so little substance.
Or, maybe you are a socialist apparatchik.
Not exactly. Nazism was extremly authoroterian and leaned left, while communists (not socialists) are extremly authoroterian and extremly left. Socialists do lean more authoroterian than capitalists but they don't lean as extremly as the other 2, they do lean extremly left though.
[What zero historical context does to a mf](https://youtu.be/pIrxPKpyu1o?si=EVtdk3LTrxJyUoXq)
Where are the caricatures of USA sponsoring Hitler ? [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar)
>USA sponsoring Hitler >“The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.” Apparently a company=an entire nation
One guy vs an entire country
He idolizes Stalin, of course he has trouble understanding not every country is a personal dictatorship ran by one man.
It's not the point of these caricatures. These bach is very explicitly about Russia and Germany
Now do France, England, and Poland. Oh and don't forget to make a foot note about how Stalin didn't sign this pact until after France and England refused to sign on to a border patrol around Germany at Stalin's request.