90
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
90 points (84.1% liked)
World News
34684 readers
616 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
never happened.
That's american 'education' for you, why am I not surprised?
Or is it your 420 influence?
"trust me bro"
The pinnacle of american intelligence and reasoning
Why don't you go play some hand egg or stickball.
You have nothing of value to contribute.
Literally every history other than revisionist and in fact Russia doesn't deny it, why the fuck would you? Oh yeah, I bet I know.
Quit embarrassing yourself, go away
Outing apologists isn't embarrassing, it's enjoyable.
You get that Russia offered to fight against the Nazis with Britain and France but Britain and France refused right?
I mean it doesn't change the fact that Soviet Union did make a deal with the Nazis and split Europe between them. Nobody is doubting that there was a reason for doing it.
Stalin offered the western powers a million men to field against nazi germany, and they refused.
Again, nobody is doubting that there was a reason for doing it.
It totally does change it. Making a non-aggression pact with the biggest military in the world just sounds like a rational move.
I think you misunderstood. It doesn't change the fact that such a pact happened and that they did divide Europe between them in it. It's opinion on how justified such a thing where those arguments matter.
Giving facts without appropriate context IS manipulation.
Stalin certainly wasn't stupid enough to genuinely ally with the nazis and did took pragmatic decision after he was turned away by the ally, who hated communism as much as hitler.
That was the preceding discussion. Someone seemed to be denying it happening at all. Someone came in with a justification for the action, I was just saying that it doesn't change the fact of it happening, just the justification over it. For further clarification, I'm against the denialism. I'm not saying it wasn't a pragmatic decision, even if morally dubious.
Not seemingly, they're saying it directly.
I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt since their tone seemed to be changing a bit during the discussion, but it turned out it was just the old "that didn't happen and even if it did" thing.
Yeah they're a propaganda bot or an absolutely absurd human being.
Communists and Nazis making a deal is understandably a bit sore part for someone supporting either. I can't imagine the whiplash people had at the time.
If that's a 'fact' it should be easy to prove right?
Or is it more likely you pulled it from your ass?
Not sure if you're joking but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
Yawn, this again.
As I thought, pulled from your ass and the same cheap tricks they try to claim with this pact.
A non-aggression treaty is not "split Europe between them"
Wait I'll return the favor:
Here is the deal between the nazis and their friends from England to split Europe between them.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030005003
You might want to read the whole first sentence of the article lol
LOL Maybe you should learn that Wikipedia is not a source and proven to be extremely biased and manipulated.
You don't even know that.
And even that Wiki page doesn't cite sources, something you need if you don't want to be seen as just making shit up, which you clearly are.
You claim it's in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.
Wikipedia just has approachable articles, so I linked to that since you seemingly hadn't heard of the pact. It cites sources like so [1] for further reading. And the existence of such pact has been admitted to in Germany, Soviet Union and later in Russia. Its existence isn't exactly controversial. It's rather how justified it was that's argued about.
Here's the original texts [1], [2]. If you want an English translation, plenty of them online. Heres' one (pdf). The secret protocols are at the end.
I've been to school and it's invariably mentioned to make the BS claims you make.
And I probably know better than you how Wikipedia works.
NONE of the references show what they claim.
The original texts talk about 'spheres of influence' in the tiny Baltics andthe rest is only about Poland.
It even says:
" The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments."
That hardly sounds like 'dividing Europe between them'.
I could call that a deliberate misinterpretation.
If you want countries making deals with the nazis that literally say they can annex them even look to the Brits and France. "Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and and defenses to Nazi Germany" is more like it.
Funny how they never mention that or the dozen of other pacts with nazis, all of them before the Soviets.
I mean they are literally drawing spheres of interest (even using the word) in there on how they'll divide those countries. And then after the deal, they conquered and subjugated their subjective areas (or tried to, in case of Finland). Your objection to that not being them dividing Europe between them is, not to be insulting, kinda silly.
I mean if anything at least you're not trying to deny such an agreement, you're just reading it in a very interesting way. That's something.
As I said 'spheres of influence and still having the option of having an independent state in Poland' sounds a lot less bad than simply handing over Sudetenland.
Complaining about only one and ignoring the worse other one is hypocritical at best.
And imagine blaming the Soviets for going in to countries aligned with nazis.
Like Finland, where you're probably are from and explains your bias.
Friend, the "independent Polish state" isn't a serious suggestion of it being independent... It's discussing something akin to "Independent State of Croatia", as in a puppet state.
I guess that's progress from "didn't happen". In any case, I just mentioned that the pact happened. If you want my opinion on other deals made with Nazis, they're also morally very dubious.
That's quite the ex post facto justification. Before and during Winter War it wasn't Finland but the USSR that was aligned with Nazi Germany (see the pact we discussed). Nazi Germany sold Finland to USSR, after all. Finland was aligned towards UK and France. It was as a result of the war that Finland turned to Nazi Germany (the secret protocols weren't known at the time) and that Nazi Germany got interested in Finland.
But in any case, I just wanted to point out that the pact between USSR and Nazi-Germany did happen. How bad it is comparatively, I'm sure there's a fruitful conversation to be had about that, but it's sorta out of scope on what I was hoping to discuss tbh.
Wow, you're doing some serious revisionism here.
A non-aggression treaty literally is that, they were enemies and it bought time for Russia to arm itself.
Keep focussing and obsessing on that and misrepresenting it to fit your narrative.
It's a small detail in the big picture and mostly brought up by the those idiots promoting the laughable horseshoe theory.
Same as how they say nazis were socialist bcs of their name.
In no way could those clear enemies be seen as 'aligned' and definitely not from something you imagine and want to see in that pact.
It is the Soviets who went to war with the nazis of Germany and of your fascist country that was most certainly aligned with them, had nazi troops there and fought on their side.
I'm done here
A non-aggression pact can be just that. This one also included additional provisions, such as dividing Poland between them. When you're carving up Poland together and shaking hands at the pre-set dividing line, it's not really reaching very far to say the two countries in question are aligned. They were certainly aligned when it came to dividing Poland.
France and Britain slept with the enemy. Russia saw the writing on the wall and tried to prevent it.
Russia was the main party fighting ww2. France instantly capitulated to the Nazis.
I get that you are a liberal but accurately retelling ww2 is not riding Stalin. Stalin made plenty stupid moves but mostly after the war. The only reason the West fought the Nazis is because they finally came for them.
I mean they were quite beat up.
France fought back a little and then hit ff15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_of_22_June_1940
Hiter hated communists. The reason France Belgium and the Netherlands capitulated was because the majority of their population was not the Nazi target. The USSR however was.
I know. My grand-grandpa wanted to enlist in the volonteers to go work in germany to support the war effort against the big bad reds.
Good thing his wife told him he was never seeing her again if he did that.
It's not a branch of my family i'm very proud of lmao. Bunch of child beating assholes
At least when you are wrong try to not load your comments with insults. I guess you are trying to find a reason to get banned while libposting so you can make a whine post about it on lib communities and pretend you got banned for libposting instead being a toxic turd.
Must be sad when all you can do is ragepost because you have no arguments.
Ya huh, you delete everything and say I have no argument because you can't argue in earnest against facts.
Maybe if you didn’t spew insults, your arguments & facts wouldn’t get removed.
The first to call someone a name was the other person but do go on.
I don't think they said or even implied that you are a dipshit.
Also, saying they had more dead bcs of their "terrible industry" is a weird way to shame a very underdeveloped nation (and if Russia capitulated Germany would have solidified the power over Europe). And akin to implying other countries could have contribute only slightly more bodies & with their "better industries" end WWII sooner.