"Had to take on both the nazis and the Soviet union" is reactionary polish revisionism.
The second "Republic" of Poland, after collaborating with nazi Germany to carve up Czech and Slovakian lands, was assured that there would be future collaboration with the nazis against the asiatic Red hordes in the east. The fascists grabbed them by the ear and started kicking them in the ass so bad through a surprise invasion the legal polish government fled out of the country so fast it was impossible to get a hold of them to communicate any orders to the Polish State.
When the Soviets stepped into "Polish" lands, it was a lawless land with no government authority. With little resistance from the people, the Soviet Union reclaimed Western Ukraine and Western Byelorus that had been torn from the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Socialist Republics by the German Kaiserreich in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Asserting that the Soviet Union invaded Poland is a cold war lie on behalf of American imperialism.
the Soviet Union reclaimed Western Ukraine and Western Byelorus that had been torn from the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Socialist Republics by the German Kaiserreich in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
I swear to god when you inform westerners of this fact, even "WW2 Enthusiasts" they look at you like you fuckin flew in from Mars
Westerners just embrace without question the most extreme fascistic form of Polish nationalism and then treat everyone else like they're beyond the pale for pointing out western Belorussians and Ukrainians exist
they’re beyond the pale for pointing out western Belorussians and Ukrainians exist
I just point at the fuckin maps, look at the border of the 2nd republic and look at the current border. If you can not comprehend somethings different enough to make you rethink your worldview you're either a :frothingfash: or a :pit:
And it's especially ironic considering the politics surrounding the region today
Ergo why I enjoy occasionally joking about Poland ending the world by invading Ukraine to take back their "stolen land"
The west gets to rejoin Poland and the east gets to rejoin Russia. Sounds fair.
I hardly think it's fair for the western Ukrainians tbh since it'd be subjecting a, although deeply reactionary to the point of fascistic, ethnic minority group to the ruling of a deeply reactionary to the point of fascistic ethnic majority state.
Now let's bring back the polish-lithuanian commonwealth and call it however its spelled in lithuanjan
any based and cool yt videos explaining more about why the Soviet Union invading Poland isn't whatever the standard NATO narrative is?
:shrug-outta-hecks: I read and what I can't find I ask my partymates if they can point me in the right direction.
I think the closest YouTube thing you can get is probably that finbol guy. If I do come across anything video-wise I'll let you know.
disproportionate amount of SS guys and those who worked in the death camps were Austrian.
Here's a fun fact: Austria is the one European country that had caused two terrible world wars and got out of being blamed for causing them by blaming the Germans.
What I'm saying is that we should start shitting on the Australians as much if not more than the germans
I've always liked the :brace-cowboy: take that after WWII, Austria should just have been removed as a country and renamed to Israel, and turned into a homeland for the jews. It would have saved a fuckload of lives in the Middle East, and it would have been a fitting punishment for a country that caused two separate world wars.
Hitler got a welcome in Austria because the Nazis had just sent them artillery to shell their own communist insurgents, right? Is that something that happened?
Hitler got a welcome in Austria because the Nazis had just sent them artillery to shell their own communist insurgents, right?
After the civil war, the Austrofascists were the only remaining opposition to the Anschluss (Most of the socdem and communists were either killed/arrested). And they were never that much popular with the Austrian population, the only reason they remained in power was due to Italian support for their government.
because the austrofascists had already gone about murdering the communists and even social democrats, it was literally a fascist country so the question mostly came down to german fascist chauvinism vs. catholic fascist chauvinism
Fascism with neopagan characteristics vs fascism with Catholic characteristics
The second “Republic” of Poland, after collaborating with nazi Germany to carve up Czech and Slovakian lands, was assured that there would be future collaboration with the nazis against the asiatic Red hordes in the east. The fascists grabbed them by the ear and started kicking them in the ass so bad through a surprise invasion the legal polish government fled out of the country
kek
how different would the world be if the capitalists could actually look beyond their bottom dollar and accept the Soviet's offer to form a pact of collective security to contain fascist aggression.
God dammit, I believed that my entire life. What books or articles do you recommend to learn more about this?
Depends, this, on the section of '38 gives some cursory info on the land-grabs And this details the Soviet-Polish war of 1920 in which the fledgling Soviet republics sought to liberate lands stolen by the Germans and granted to the reactionary nationalists during ww1's Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
They're good rough starts on the subjects to get an idea of the bigger picture of the region.
Thanks! I'll look into them. I didn't think it would be as easy a reading wikipedia, I expected that you'd recommend academic articles or books.
It also holds entire sections of additional names of sources and references of the encyclopedia. To reach it word search "October Revolution and Civil War, 1917-20"
You can compare it to what the great Russian encyclopedia says on the same period
Lenin sending A Letter to the Polish Communists. October 19, 1921
An interview of Trotsky on the Polish Front. May 6 1920.
If you want an "unbiased" glimpse into the Civil War period, Kotkin's first book on Stalin covers the Civil war.
I'm not sure I agree with the assessment on France. I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression they had a reasonable strategy for regrouping after the Nazis decided to give up on going through the Maginot line. The issue was that they misjudged the pace at which the Nazis would make it through the Ardennes. And if I'm not mistaken, the reason for that misjudgement was they didn't expect that amphetamine fueled soldiers would be able to work the hours they did.
I think the battle of France kind of came down to luck on the timing more than either tactics or the "unstoppable German War machine".
I also recall hearing that there were fascist collaborators among the French bougeoise that helped call for the capitulation of the French state instead of trying to reorganize the military to fight the fascist invaders. But I need to research that more so concider it hearsay and not fact.
the improvement to allied affairs would be pretty limited after a capture of Paris, Brits were out and the remainder of the army were gonna get smashed. a steadfastly allied French fleet woudda helped but clearly wasn't actually necessary for victory. maybe non-Vichy algeria would've put the screws to the italians but imo its equally likely they'd pathetically fold :shrug-outta-hecks:
the French staff literally thought a substantial armored force couldn't go through the Ardennes. they ignored intelligence giving them advanced warning because it was not a possibility and the scouts mustve been mistaken. they could've moved more troops to counter, attacked them aerially/conventionally in the forest, but their rigid understanding of the combat theater blinded them until it was too late.
i wouldn't necessarily call it an 'outdated command structure' but poor leadership & strategic inflexibility in spades
it wasn't exactly easy for the ussr. by the end of the war they had to extend the age range for conscription because they were running out of people.
