15 thousand upvotes on :reddit-logo: :yes-honey-left:

    • emizeko [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      hace 2 años

      The Soviets were the last country in europe to sign a pact with the Nazis and here’s a handy infographic of the countries that did sign.

      The Soviets spent over a year trying to sign an anti Nazi alliance with the British and the French.

      The British confirmed all of this in 2009 when the 70 year limit ran out and their archive was opened and the full scale of what Stalin offered the Brits and French was basically enough to ensure WW2 never happened.

      The British and French however sent delegates with no authority to sign an alliance. The polish hated the Soviets because they were fascists under Pilzudski and were hoping for an alliance with Hitler.

      Poland also realized that if they allowed the Soviets onto Polish territory the Soviets would unilaterally annex the land the Polish had stolen from the Soviet Union in the 1918-1920 invasion of the USSR where Poland annexed land from Belarus, Lithuania (they stole Villnus the capital of Lithuania) and Ukraine.

      The Polish then enacted a forced “Polandisation” of the citizens living there. Suppressing native languages and treating Belarussians/Lits and Ukrainians as 2nd class peoples.

      Bear in mind this is one year after they signed the Munich agreement which gave Hitler Czechoslovakia.

      "Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.

      The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin’s generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.

      But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.

      The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the foreign secretaries of the two countries, came on August 23 - just a week before Nazi Germany attacked Poland, thereby sparking the outbreak of the war. But it would never have happened if Stalin’s offer of a western alliance had been accepted, according to retired Russian foreign intelligence service Major General Lev Sotskov, who sorted the 700 pages of declassified documents.

      "This was the final chance to slay the wolf, even after [British Conservative prime minister Neville] Chamberlain and the French had given up Czechoslovakia to German aggression the previous year in the Munich Agreement," said Gen Sotskov, 75.

      The Soviet offer - made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov - would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany’s borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show.

      But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorised only to talk, not to make deals.

      “Had the British, French and their European ally Poland, taken this offer seriously then together we could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time,” said Gen Sotskov, who joined the Soviet intelligence service in 1956. “This was a chance to save the world or at least stop the wolf in its tracks.”

      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 yes, there were talks to join the axis! Germany at this point was in war with Britain and France and the Soviets needed another year and would still suffer horrendous losses (27 million dead)

      So what was the result of those axis talks? (Besides the end point which was Germany invading the Soviet Union but let’s continue down the fantasy path that the Soviets trusted fucking Hitler and they were going seriously joining any German axis) .

      “Hitler, however, saw the Soviet territorial ambitions in the Balkans as a challenge to German interests and saw its plan as effectively making Bulgaria into an adjunct of the Axis pact. On several occasions, Molotov asked German officials for their response to Moscow’s counterproposals, but Germany never answered them. Germany’s refusal to respond to the counterproposal worsened relations between the countries. Regarding the counterproposal, Hitler remarked to his top military chiefs that Stalin “demands more and more”, “he’s a cold-blooded blackmailer” and that “a German victory has become unbearable for Russia” so that “she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible.””

      —Ericson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941,

      We’ve established thus far that the Soviets prioritized a British-French and Polish anti-nazi alliance. That the British, Poles and French governments were rat bastards that saw communism as a greater evil than fascism and were hoping for the Germans and Russians to kill each other.

      At this point though I’ve only quoted bourgeois sources so let’s see what the Soviets said about all this .

      "After the first imperialist war the victor states, primarily Britain, France and the United States, had set up a new regime in the relations between countries, the post-war regime of peace. The main props of this regime were the Nine-Power Pact in the Far East, and the Versailles Treaty and a number of other treaties in Europe. The League of Nations was set up to regulate relations between countries within the framework of this regime, on the basis of a united front of states, of collective defence of the security of states. However, three aggressive states, and the new imperialist war launched by them, have upset the entire system of this post-war peace regime. Japan tore up the Nine-Power Pact, and Germany and Italy the Versailles Treaty. In order to have their hands free, these three states withdrew from the League of Nations.

      The new imperialist war became a fact.

      It is not so easy in our day to suddenly break loose and plunge straight into war without regard for treaties of any kind or for public opinion. Bourgeois politicians know this very well. So do the fascist rulers. That is why the fascist rulers decided, before plunging into war, to frame public opinion to suit their ends, that is, to mislead it, to deceive it.

      A military bloc of Germany and Italy against the interests of England and France in Europe? Bless us, do you call that a bloc? “We” have no military bloc. All “we” have is an innocuous “Berlin-Rome axis”; that is, just a geometrical equation for an axis. (Laughter.)

      A military bloc of Germany, Italy and Japan against the interests of the United States, Great Britain and France in the Far East? Nothing of the kind. “We” have no military bloc. All “we” have is an innocuous “Berlin-Rome-Tokyo triangle”; that is, a slight penchant for geometry. (General laughter.)

      A war against the interests of England, France, the United States? Nonsense! “We” are waging war on the Comintern, not on these states. If you don’t believe it, read the “anti-Comintern pact” concluded between Italy, Germany and Japan.

      That is how Messieurs the aggressors thought of framing public opinion, although it was not hard to see how preposterous this whole clumsy game of camouflage was; for it is ridiculous to look for Comintern “hotbeds” in the deserts of Mongolia, in the mountains of Abyssinia, or in the wilds of Spanish Morocco. (Laughter.)

      But war is inexorable. It cannot be hidden under any guise. For no “axes,” “triangles” or “anti-Comintern pacts” can hide the fact that in this period Japan has seized a vast stretch of territory in China, that Italy has seized Abyssinia, that Germany has seized Austria and the Sudeten region, that Germany and Italy together have seized Spain – and all this in defiance of the interests of the non-aggressive states. The war remains a war; the military bloc of aggressors remains a military bloc; and the aggressors remain aggressors.

      It is a distinguishing feature of the new imperialist war that it has not yet become universal, a world war. The war is being waged by aggressor states, who in every way infringe upon the interests of the non-aggressive states, primarily England, France and the U.S.A., while the latter draw back and retreat, making concession after concession to the aggressors.

      Thus we are witnessing an open redivision of the world and spheres of influence at the expense of the non-aggressive states, without the least attempt at resistance, and even with a certain amount of connivance, on the part of the latter.

      Incredible, but true.

      To what are we to attribute this one-sided and strange character of the new imperialist war?

      credit to @JoeysStainlessSteel (RIP)

      • Thomas_Dankara [any,comrade/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        hace 2 años

        the truth: 7 paragraphs long

        the lie: haha commie nazi same thing lol

        we have our work cut out for us :doomjak:

        • FemboyStalin [she/her,any]
          ·
          hace 2 años

          It took more than 7 paragraphs to get to "haha commie Nazi same thing", it took an entire lifetime of propaganda. You're not wrong, we have our work cut out for us but it isn't easier for them, they just get the jump on us. Think about how little time youve been exposed to communist values and how deeply they run through you, we can instill that in others.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]
            ·
            hace 2 años

            Word. People in 1946 understood what had happened. It's taken decades and decades and decades to erase that memory.

      • Vncredleader
        ·
        hace 2 años

        I've been reading 1939 The Alliance That Never Was and the Coming of World War II, and my god EVERYONE knew Poland was happy to work with Hitler. Churchill spoke of it himself

        How quickly time would pass: the Polish victim of 1939 was only months following the Polish aggressor. "Groveling in villainy," said churchill, the Polish vulture picked at left-over carrion.

        A bit earlier

        The war scare prompted the French government to sound out Poland about its support, though the Poles had already offered numerous indications of their intent. On May 22 Bonnet called in the Polish ambassador in Paris, Juliusz Lukasiewicz, to ask what the Polish policy would be. "We'll not move," replied Lukasiewicz. The Franco-Polish defense treaty included no obligation in the event of war over Czechoslovakia, if France attacked Germany to support the Czech government, then France would be the aggressor. Not apparently overreacting to this extraordinary statement, Bonnet then inquired about the Polish attitude toward the Soviet Union, stressing the importance of Soviet support, given Polish "passiveness." Lukasiewicz was equally categorical: "the Poles consider the Russians to be enemies....[we] will oppose by force, if necessary, any Russian entry onto [our] territory including overflights by Russian aircraft." Czechoslovakia, Lukasiewicz added, was unworthy of French support.

        If Bonnet had any doubts that the Polish ambassador was not accurately representing his government's views, these were quickly put to rest by Field Marshal Edward Smigly-Rydz. He told the French ambassador in Warsaw, Leon Noel, that the Poles considered Russia, no matter who governed it, to be "Enemy No. 1" "If the German remains an adversary, he is not less a European and a man or order. For Poles, the Russian is a barbarian, an Asiatic, a corrupt and poisonous element, with which any contact is perilous and any compromise, lethal." According to the Polish government, aggressive action by France, or movement of Soviet troops, say even across Romania, could prompt the Poles to side with Nazi Germany. This would suit many Poles, reported Noel: they "dream of conquests at the expense of the USSR, exaggerating its difficulties and counting on its collapse." France had better not force Poland to choose between Russian and Germany, because their choice, according to Noel, could easily be guessed. As Daladier put it to the Soviet ambassador, "Not only can we not count on Polish support, but we have no faith that Poland will not strike [us] in the back." Polish loyalty was in doubt even in the event of direct German aggression against France.

        Colonel Jozef Beck was the Polish foreign minister and a key subordinate of Marshal Jozef Pilsudski, the Polish nationalist leader who had died in 1935.....like Pilsudski, Beck was a Polish nationalist who hoped to reestablish Poland as a great power, as it had been in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Their efforts were unsuccessful, and this failure left Polish nationalists sout and quick to take offence. Yet they tended to carry on the business of state as though Poland _was a great power - dangerous conduct in the 1930s as Nazi Germany grew stronger and more predatory......

        ....Beck said that Poland would not "tie its hands" regarding Tesche, "it did not have belligerent intentions but it could not agree that German demands being satisfied, Poland should receive nothing." Put another way, Beck said that he did not intend to leave Germany the exclusive benefits of a dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.

        Yinz better appreciate the fact that I typed all of that out myself.

        @kristina tagging you cause you might be interested in some of these convos between officials leading right up to Munich.

        Suffice to say, Poland was a fucking vulture here, actively working to not only invade Czechoslovakia, but threatening to join the Nazis fully if attempts to work with the USSR to save Czechoslovakia or perhaps even France occurred.

        • kristina [she/her]
          ·
          edit-2
          hace 2 años

          Oh sup.

          Yeah nah I'm already well aware. Poles were rewarded some areas of Czechoslovakia as a result of the Nazi invasion. There was also the Polish-Czechoslovak war in 1919, which is framed as a Czech invasion of Polish territory by Western powers, but it was in fact a breach of some post WW1 peace agreements by the Polish side and the forcible conscription of people in Czech Silesia by the Polish to go fight socialist Ukrainians. Poland was very expansionist and fascistic and invaded almost every power around them at the time. Boohoo, can't believe the Soviets retook their losses in the Polish-Soviet war when the Nazis came in :wojak-nooo:

          So anyways, the Polish wanted that land plus some extra bits off of Slovakia plus a lil bit extra off of Czechia when they did an agreement with Hitler.

          • Vncredleader
            ·
            hace 2 años

            Oh I didn't mean to imply you didn't know the specifics, I know you've spoken about Polish irredentism before. I should've worded that better.

            But yeah Poland is just invading everyone circa 1918-1922 or so. And they love the victim complex, from the whole miracle on that one river when they fended off a Soviet counter offensive following Poland literally invading Ukraine, to the war with the newly formed Czechoslovakia, to the siege of Lwow/Lemberg which kicked off the first Polish-Ukrainian war and is just dripping in hagiography. for real read the wikipedia, the amount of open maturation of Polish nationalism is intense.

            Like this line

            Because of their heroism and mass participation in the fights, they are commonly referred to as Lwów Eaglets. The Polish defenders also included a significant component of petty criminals, who, nevertheless, were valued for their heroism

            Or mentioning the pogroms carried out by Poles in the most passive voice way ever and then unlike the rest of the paragraph, giving no citation for "once the Poles had order they totes punished the people who did this thing". And looking into the pogrom you get a list of Polish "historians" making insane claims that no Ukrainians died in the pogrom, or that more Christians died than Jews so it totally wasn't a pogrom despite said Christians being Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Ukrainians. And a longstanding tradition of Polish claims that it cant be a pogrom if it happens during war.

            Poland LOVES its victim complex and the double holocaust shit because they need it in order to avoid the serious questions that arise when one looks even surface level at Polish history in the 20th century. The fact that people use the fact that Poland got blowback after being a vulture on Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Belarus, and Lithuania, as a means of dissing the USSR is gross.

    • emizeko [they/them]
      ·
      hace 2 años

      Idiots claim Hitler "allied" with the USSR because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, ignoring that:

      1. Hitler openly declared his intention to invade the USSR in Mein Kampf and the Soviet archives show us Soviet leadership was well aware of this. It's absurd to suggest they ever had any sort of mutual trust that could be considered an "alliance" since the Soviets were convinced Germany was planning to invade them. Only a year after the pact which is supposedly an "alliance," the Soviet government declared the Wehrmacht as "the most dangerous threat to the Soviet Union." Soviet spies also repeatedly even reported on potential invasions, with Richard Sorge even reporting the exact date of the invasion. Western media likes to portray this 1939-1941 period as an "alliance" where the Hitler breaking the pact was a "sudden shock" to the Soviets, when in reality, the Soviets were paranoid of being invaded, they all were convinced they were going to be invaded, and historians universally agree they were trying to militarily prepare for an invasion.
      2. The Munich Agreement signed by western powers such as France and UK also agreed to partition Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler. Was this an alliance? No, it was appeasement. In hindsight, appeasement was the wrong decision, but as they say, hindsight is 20/20. The Holocaust did not begin until 1941, years after both these agreements, and you can't know if someone will break the agreement until they already broke it. In other words, knowing this was a bad decision required seeing into the future. If Hitler never carried out a Holocaust, and WW2 was completely avoided, then we wouldn't be looking back on history with things like Molotov-Ribbontrop pact and the Munich Agreement so poorly.
      3. Appeasement could have been avoided in its entirety if UK and France agreed to have a mutual defense treaty with the USSR to contain Germany. The USSR proposed this to the UK and France, but were ignored (source). If you are a weakened country from war, your powerful neighbor has openly stated they wish to invade you, and no one wants to form a military alliance with you, how do you possibly defend yourself? Through appeasement of course.
      4. Appeasement did at least delay WW2. The Soviets were very weak from WW1 and their civil war. They needed time to build up their industry, and this should not be understated. You can see a graph here of how fast they were industrializing. Given how close the war between Germany and the Soviets were, without delaying the war, the Soviets might have lost, meaning that this pact delaying the war is arguably one of the most humanitarian political decisions ever carried out, since it prevented the Holocaust from spreading to all of eastern Europe. To quote Stalin, "What did we gain by concluding the non-aggression pact with Germany? We secured our country peace for a year and a half and the opportunity of preparing our forces to repulse fascist Germany should she risk an attack on our country despite the pact. This was a definite advantage for us and a disadvantage for fascist Germany."
      5. Some will say the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is worse than the Munich Agreement because the partition of Poland also included a joint invasion. But nothing in the agreement actually calls for an invasion. The Soviets could've not entered de facto Polish territory at all and still the agreement would not have been voided. It only called for "spheres of influence," meaning that both powers would not try to stretch any of their political influence beyond certain defined boundaries. So the Soviet entry into Polish de facto territory should be treated as a separate question to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact itself.
      6. Indeed, the Soviets did end up militarily entering de facto Polish territory in response to seeing the Germans invade Poland. But what you aren't told is that much of this territory either belonged to Soviet Russia or Ukraine prior, and that Poland took this territory after embarking on an imperialistic conquest, viewing themselves as the rightful inheritors of the Polish empire that existed some centuries prior, so they tried to expand their borders to take land that was the same as that empire.
      7. What cities did the Soviets invade? If you name them, you quickly find none of them are actually part of Poland today. They were only held by Poland for an incredibly brief period of time, after Poland's invasion of Ukraine and Russia, and prior to the Soviets taking the land back, not even 2 decades, about 18 years. The only exception is Bialystok and a few small towns around it, which did go beyond what the Poles originally took, but the Soviets restored this land pretty quickly after the Poles complained. The Soviets had no intent to "conquer" or "occupy" Poland, but just took their land back which rightfully belonged to them in the first place.
      8. Take Lviv for example. Lviv was controlled by Ukraine, and the declared capitol of the West Ukrainian People's Republic. Poland invaded and the government retreated into exile, and then held this land for 18 years until Soviet Ukraine with the rest of the Soviet Union took it back. It seems to set a weird precedence to insist a country invading another to restore its empire from centuries ago is justified, but that one country using its military to take back land stolen not even a quarter of a lifetime ago is actually the evil one.
      9. Poland was settling large amounts of Poles into the territory it took and oppressing the Ukrainians there, rounding them up and putting them into concentration camps. Naturally, this made Poland take interest in Nazi ideology, and came under heavy influence of Nazi Germany. To quote Boris Shaposhnikov from the time, "Poland is already [drawn] into the orbit of the Fascist bloc while seeking to demonstrate supposed independence of its foreign policy."
      10. Soviet entry into Polish occupied territory also provided a pathway for Soviets to begin evacuating Jews from the Holocaust. To quote James Rosenberg, "of some 1,750,000 Jews who succeeded in escaping the Axis since the outbreak of hostilities, about 1,600,000 were evacuated by the Soviet Government from Eastern Poland and subsequently occupied Soviet territory and transported far into the Russian interior."
      11. While the Soviets eventually did cross into actually rightfully Polish land, this was only when Germany had already taken it over and attacked the USSR, and Germany was carrying out the Holocaust at this point. Meaning, the Soviets liberating Poland from the Nazis is a good thing, and they should be grateful for it, and owe a debt to the Soviet army.
      12. Even some western powers were in agreement that the Soviets were right in the expanding in order to contain Hitler. Churchill, for example, would even admit that the Soviet entry into the Baltics was a positive thing because it could help contain Hitler (source). So it's really a new-age historical revisionism to act like nobody knew Hitler had expansionist tendencies and that the Soviets were not in the right trying to contain it.

      To summarize: the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was one of the most humanitarian political decisions in human history. Soviets were trapped in a corner with no allies willing to help them and knowing German expansionism was coming, which would spread the Holocaust throughout all of Eureasia, and they made the hard decisions necessary to stop it, as well as liberating territory unrightfully occupied by Poland that rightfully belonged to several other republics, notably Ukraine. There are millions of people's lives we can point to who were directly saved by this, but potentially tens of millions, even hundreds of millions, who would've died if the Germans managed to defeat the Soviet Union.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        ·
        hace 2 años

        Redditors: "Uhh, actually the Nazis invading Poland and murdering 6,000,000 people is the same as the USSR invading Poland and eliminating about 100,000 political enemies".

    • ElChapoDeChapo [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      hace 2 años
      cw suicide, homicide, torture

      The only reason I don't want you to kill yourself is so I can end your pathetic existence myself you vile transphobic pedo 4chan reject inhuman waste

      We will win and I'm going to make your death as slow and painful as possible

      I will invent new torture methods just for you but we'll start by removing your penis and making you eat it thought it may be hard for you without any teeth