• JoeySteel [comrade/them]
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 years ago
    "For example, people ask with an air of innocence how the Soviet Union could consent to improve political relations with a state of the fascist type. Is that possible? they ask. But they forget that it is not a question of our attitude towards the internal regime of another country, but of the foreign relations between two states. They forget that we adhere to the position of not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and, correspondingly, of not tolerating interference in our own internal affairs.** Furthermore, they forget an important principle of our foreign policy, which was formulated by Comrade Stalin at the Eighteenth Party Congresses follows:
    
    “We stand for peace and the strengthening of business relations with all countries. That is our position; and we shall adhere to this position as long as these countries maintain like relations with the Soviet Union, and as long as they make no attempt to trespass on the interests of our country.”
    
    The meaning of these words is quite clear: the Soviet Union strives to maintain friendly relations with all non-Soviet countries, provided these countries maintain a like attitude towards the Soviet Union.(Ibid)."
    

    So what was the result of the Soviets signing the pact after the British and French had sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler as a down-payment to invade the USSR? A week later the British were forced to declare war on Nazi Germany.

    The Soviet had flipped the tables on the British and French (and why the bourgeois present the “red-brown alliance!” because they don’t want to admit they were outplayed). The Soviets had secured their 2 front war meaning that when war eventually came to the Soviet Union…Germany would already be fighting two fronts.

    The Soviets were determined for peace and they aimed, consistently for peace. It was not their job to liberate the world from German fascism (yet this would be exactly what they did, The Soviets liberated Auschwitz).

    WW2 cost the Soviets 27 million of their own people - they had every right to attempt peace by any means necessary and only at the 11th hour, after the British and French refused again , did they realise they were on their own and they had to buy time for themselves.

    I must admit I’m with Grover Furr on his conclusion though. If the Soviets had been successful in getting an anti-Nazi alliance I’ve no doubt that the Brits and French would’ve done nothing as Germans invaded Poland while USSR would’ve been bound to defend Poland only for the Brits and French to do nothing (as the Brits and French did to Czechoslovakia)

    Upon realising they were being back-stabbed by the Brits and French - the Soviet Union would now be at war with Germany with no Western Front.

    In a round about way of history it is better that the Brits and French connived with Hitler.

    That the Soviets, in turn, fucked over the Brits/Poles and French after they refused an alliance because then the Soviets were able to force Britain, Poland and France into the war for an entire year before the Soviets were forced to enter it

    • LoMeinTenants [any]
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      4 years ago

      Protip: next time just use a link instead of bogarting the page with some copypasta. My mouse wheel is pissed, and now I'm not gonna read it out of spite.

      • JoeySteel [comrade/them]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        You should its a good read but fair enough

        Look i know i look like a bit of a prick copy pasting a huge thing i wrote a while back however when i seriously studied the origins of ww2 i was gobsmacked and felt like a huge veil of propaganda i had grown up with was lifted.

        I perhaps urge you to return to it when youre more in the mood for a long detailed read

        • LoMeinTenants [any]
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 years ago

          his screed was literally a copypasta from reddit

          big oof

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        I can see why he posted instead of linking. Linking to Grover Furr usually results in completely dismissing him without reading because of the controversies surrounding him. Actually posting his writing is far far more likely to get people to actually read it and his points on this are probably the best.

        • JoeySteel [comrade/them]
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          Fyi its not Grover Furr but what i wrote for Moretankechapo ages ago

          • Awoo [she/her]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            Huh. I thought I read some of that in Grover Furr. Maybe I read the original post back then and I was reading Grover around the same time and started to mix things up in my head. Late nights and poor sleep cycles turn things into a blur. Thanks for the correction!

            • JoeySteel [comrade/them]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 years ago

              Grover Furr has a lot of it in Bloodlies so what ive written is similar to his stance though his is way more detailed

              However (decent) Communist Parties have been saying the above for years