90

It's a fact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 days ago

You get that Russia offered to fight against the Nazis with Britain and France but Britain and France refused right?

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -5 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago
[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

Again, nobody is doubting that there was a reason for doing it.

[-] nomoesyankho@lemmy.wtf 8 points 1 day ago

It totally does change it. Making a non-aggression pact with the biggest military in the world just sounds like a rational move.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] nomoesyankho@lemmy.wtf 8 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You get that Russia flight with Germany until they got betrayed right? Right?

never happened.

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.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Not seemingly, they're saying it directly.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah they're a propaganda bot or an absolutely absurd human being.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

If that's a 'fact' it should be easy to prove right?
Or is it more likely you pulled it from your ass?

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

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

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You might want to read the whole first sentence of the article lol

was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, with a secret protocol establishing Soviet and German spheres of influence across Eastern Europe.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.

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.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

you seemingly hadn’t heard of the pact

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.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

sounds a lot less bad

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.

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.

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.

[-] Bloomcole@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

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

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee -1 points 1 day ago

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.

this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
90 points (84.1% liked)

World News

34684 readers
982 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS