The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not societ "collaboration" with the Nazis. It was a self-preserving, non-aggression treaty between a rising fascist empire hell-bent on destroying workers movements like communism as all fascists are and a young workers movement that had been besieged since it's inception. It gave them the time they needed to industrialize and prepare for the inevitable war with the Germans which they sacrificed so much for. 80% of Nazis were killed by the red army and 27 million soviets died for it.
Calling that pact collaboration is incredibly direspectful to their history and reveals a severe lack of understanding in both politics and the material situation of those societies at the time.
Yup. I hate historical revisionism. The pact was strategic, not a tacit approval of Nazism.
Even if you view it from the German point of view, it was the same. Hitler didn't suddenly like Communism for a short while. He had to build up his forces for invasion.
Have you read the secret protocol that was attached to it? How can dividing the Eastern Europe into „spheres of interest“ and occupying the territories of foreign states (the pact was signed a month before WWII started by both nazi Germany and USSR that invaded Poland, after that the Baltic countries, Romania and maybe a country or two more that I cannot remember) a „self-preserving, non-aggression treaty between a rising fascist empire hell-bent on destroying workers movements like communism as all fascists are and a young workers movement“? Pardon me, but your statement is full of shit. Just like USSR, that’s why it was „besieged since it’s inception“.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not societ "collaboration" with the Nazis. It was a self-preserving, non-aggression treaty between a rising fascist empire hell-bent on destroying workers movements like communism as all fascists are and a young workers movement that had been besieged since it's inception. It gave them the time they needed to industrialize and prepare for the inevitable war with the Germans which they sacrificed so much for. 80% of Nazis were killed by the red army and 27 million soviets died for it.
Calling that pact collaboration is incredibly direspectful to their history and reveals a severe lack of understanding in both politics and the material situation of those societies at the time.
Yup. I hate historical revisionism. The pact was strategic, not a tacit approval of Nazism.
Even if you view it from the German point of view, it was the same. Hitler didn't suddenly like Communism for a short while. He had to build up his forces for invasion.
Have you read the secret protocol that was attached to it? How can dividing the Eastern Europe into „spheres of interest“ and occupying the territories of foreign states (the pact was signed a month before WWII started by both nazi Germany and USSR that invaded Poland, after that the Baltic countries, Romania and maybe a country or two more that I cannot remember) a „self-preserving, non-aggression treaty between a rising fascist empire hell-bent on destroying workers movements like communism as all fascists are and a young workers movement“? Pardon me, but your statement is full of shit. Just like USSR, that’s why it was „besieged since it’s inception“.
Yeah territory definitely has no strategic value when you are preparing for war against your largest ideological enemy 💀
I never said it was great, just that you were severely misrepresenting it