1117
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Chatotorix@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I also thought it was funny for the guy to say this in !confidently_incorrect. Thank you for the history class.

[-] weirdwallace75@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

They're just repeating old Stalinist propaganda.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch12.htm

Moscow, seeing that the Red Referendum manoeuvre had failed, threw all pretence aside and came openly out for letting Hitler in.

On October 14, 1931, Remmele, one of the three official leaders of the Communist Party, with Stalinist effrontery announced the policy in the Reichstag.

“Herr Bruening has put it very plainly; once they (the Fascists) are in power, then the united front of the proletariat will be established and it will make a clean sweep of everything. (Violent applause from the Communists)…We are the victors of the coming day; and the question is no longer one of who shall vanquish whom. This question is already answered. (Applause from the Communists). The question now reads only, ‘At what moment shall we overthrow the bourgeoisie?’…We are not afraid of the Fascist gentlemen. They will shoot their bolt quicker than any other Government. (Right you are! from the Communists) …”

The Fascists, so ran the argument, would introduce inflation, there would be financial chaos, and then the proletarian victory would follow. The speech was printed with a form asking for membership of the party attached and distributed in great numbers all over Germany.

Stalinist parties are led from above. Their leaders get the line and impose it. Disobedience is labelled Trotskyism, Right deviation, and what not, and the dissidents expelled. But the situation in Germany was too tense, and violent protests from the Left Wing caused the policy to be withdrawn. But from that moment it was certain that the Communist Party leadership would never fight, and the “After Hitler, our turn” [25] was the line on which they led the party. The German leadership did not follow blindly. Some of them carried on a ceaseless struggle to the very end. But built on Moscow they faced isolation if they broke with Moscow, and the organisational vice silenced or expelled them. [26]

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

It's amusing how contemporary Stalinists put so much effort into justifying a pact that Stalin himself tried to keep from public knowledge and Russians rarely want to acknowledge.

That ought to tell you that the USSR wasn't proud of Molotov-Ribbentrop.

[-] Chatotorix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What's even more amusing is a bunch of history revisionists come here to defend the argument that the communists and not the fascists were the main partners of the Nazis, lol. Seriously. They were literally part of the same military coalition.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Communists and Nazis were literally part of the same military coalition. Stalin made sure of that. He even made a toast for Hitler's continued good health.

[-] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

'I know how much the German nation loves its Fuehrer; I should therefore like to drink to his health.’

You should really be reading this as an intelligently worded sleight. Particularly given they had already begun building the 102,000 tanks that would eventually kill him. It's the perfect thing to say when you know this man took power on just 42% of the vote, and that support would actually be lower after killing and suppressing all opposition if not for the terror campaigns and suppression.

When you know you're already planning to kill this man drinking to his health is quite apt.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, the UK and France were likewise preparing for war. So how can Western nations be condemned for buying time by negotiating with Hitler, if you are willing to excuse Stalin for doing precisely the same thing?

[-] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Neither were doing anything of the sort. As I have already pointed out and as basically all academic historians agree - both were trying to steer Hitler towards attacking the USSR. They rejected every attempt of the USSR to do anything about the nazis, forcing the USSR to either accept fighting the nazis or to enter into their own non-aggression pact. They did not believe the USSR would do so.

Stop inventing history. Read a fucking book.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The West was most definitely preparing for war, even if they hoped Hitler would attack the USSR. Peacetime conscription, previously unheard of in the UK, was established in the months before Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed.

Meanwhile, Stalin was preparing for war and hoped Hitler would attack the West.

Why didn't the West cooperate with Stalin in those early days? Probably because they didn't trust him. For good reason.

[-] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is nonsense. You genuinely do not know what you are talking about.

In 1936 Britain ordered just 310 Spitfires to be produced, delivered in 1938. And was only contracted for another 1000 by 1940.

When Germany fucked Poland and turned towards France in 1939, there was just 3 months between this action and Britain sending the British Expeditionary Force of 390,000 troops to support the French. These all got resoundingly fucked in the ass because they were NOT PREPARED. This led to the disaster at Dunkirk.

Britain then started to take shit seriously. Massive action was taken, the Shadow Factory Plan was put into effect, Spitfire production was taken and given to Vickers, and the London Aircraft Production Group was formed to start churning out Spitfires and bombers en masse. Britain was not remotely preparing for war, it had action plans it could take IF a war broke out, but it was doing fuck all until the IF actually happened.

But we can listen to Winston Churchill himself on this topic can't we? His words to the italian fascists in 1927 are explicitly clear on what side he stood:

If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been wholeheartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.

I am begging you people to read books for your history. Real books by actual academic historians. Stop getting all of your history from reddit comments made by literal actual fascists who fill your brain with porridge. It's like someone says the word communism and all of you lose the capability to remember that half the internet are reactionaries that want desantis for president, you completely ignore that when they fill you brains with something you desperately want to hear because you're so heavily propagandised on anti-communism that you lose all capability to verify fact from fascist fiction and historical revisionism.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you are counting Spitfires in 1936, then you are the one who needs to read more history books. The Hurricane, not the Spitfire, was the primary fighter aircraft used by the RAF in the early war. In 1938, RAF had only 2 Hurricane squadrons. When they declared war the following year, they already had 16 Hurricane squadrons and 35,000 new troops. So yes, they were most definitely preparing for war.

And obviously, "preparing for war" does not mean "capable of defeating Hitler". The UK suffered a defeat at Dunkirk in 1940 for the same reason that the Soviets suffered defeats at Kharkiv and Smolensk in 1941: they both prepared for war, but the Germans were far better prepared.

[-] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bro 35,000 troops is fucking NOTHING. You grasping at straws. Just the wehrmacht at that time was nearly 3million professional soldiers. That's without even getting into the navy and the air force.

You are absolutely not taking part in this conversation seriously. All you're doing is spouting the lies you want to spout while desperately clinging onto completely incorrect positions that you stubbornly refuse to back down from because to do so would mean having to admit the socialists are right. Since you're ideologically committed to anti socialism you refuse to.

All of this happening in the Confidently Incorrect community is the funniest part.

You wanna know what actually preparing for war looks like? "We will deploy 1 million troops to the border with Germany in Poland to deter Hitler by next week if you will join us with what you have." which was literally the offer the Soviets put on the table of France and England.

You need to get a grip. The scale must be understood in order to see that they absolutely were not preparing for war. The UK right NOW in 2023 is considering a 30,000 increase in army size on the exist 73,000 army it maintains, this is categorically not a preparation for war but simply a small expansion to provide it with other capabilities. The UK at that time had a colonial empire to maintain, such changes in army size were not unusual.

Here is the UK military size every single year since 1700, obtained through a Freedom of Information request that the government must comply with when made by British citizens. I urge you to take a look at the full history and see for yourself what the obvious moment was where preparations for war begin. It was 1939 and 1940 only when the UK was forced to. If you look at the full history you will agree that the fluctuations were all perfectly normal prior to the "oh shit" moment created when the soviets finally gave up on the game that they were playing and pushed Hitler west by agreeing to the non aggression pact.

All of this could have been averted had they not fucked around. They fucked around and they found out. They literally brought it on themselves.

Fuck me man I don't need this irritation on a work break.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's 35,000 trained conscripts, starting from zero trained conscripts.

Does that seem small? Well, that's because the UK did not start peacetime conscription until mid-1938, conscripts took six months to train, and war was declared in 1939. Do the math.

But before that, in May 1939, the UK greatly expanded its conscription efforts. Which means that while only 35,000 conscripts were trained by September 1939, there were 200,000 conscripts trained by December.

I think you are the one who is not taking this seriously. There is ample evidence that the UK was preparing for war throughout 1939, and you are grasping at whatever figures you can find to deny reality.

Your own link proves my point. There is a sharp increase in military personnel in 1939. You incorrectly assume that all of this increase took place after war was declared in September, but this is simply not the case - conscription was ramped up in several stages throughout 1939.

In any case, you are shifting the goalposts. Originally you suggested that Western democracies ignored Germany, now you are arguing that they should have done more, which presumes they recognized the Nazi threat. But there is no question that all of the Allies could have been better prepared. How else do you explain the nearly 500K Soviet casualties at Smolensk, with less than 40K German KIA/MIA?

We will deploy 1 million troops to the border with Germany in Poland to deter Hitler by next week

Ah yes, the generous offer made by Stalin literally during his negotiations of a non-aggression pact with Hitler. I wouldn't have trusted it either.

[-] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have literally already included these in our discussion above. You are going in circles.

[-] Chatotorix@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Holy fucking shit, the gall of saying communists and nazis were part of a military coalition, lol. This has to be a bit, given the community we're in.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The Red Army and the Wehrmacht coordinated a combined attack on Poland. Sounds like a military coalition to me.

For all their faults, the armies of the West never conducted a joint offensive with Nazis. Almost a century later, the West considers its attempts to negotiate with Hitler a complete failure, even a source of shame. Nobody here will defend it.

But you can always count on Stalinists to shamelessly defend striking a deal with Nazis.

[-] Chatotorix@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, not subscribing to the idea that the ones who defeated the Nazis are their main allies - and not, you know, the other powers in their military coalition - means I'm a Stalinist.

Some people are so fucked up in the head, it's fascinating.

[-] FlowVoid@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

I never said the main allies of the Nazis were the Soviets.

The Nazis were allied with fascist Italy and imperialist Japan. They were in a brief military coalition with the Soviets, betrayed the Soviets, and were defeated by the Soviets (with some help from their allies in the West).

At no point were the Western democracies in any sort of military coalition or alliance with Hitler.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
1117 points (97.7% liked)

Confidently Incorrect

3984 readers
1 users here now

When people are way too smug about their wrong answer.

Posting guidelines.

All posts in this community have come from elsewhere, it is not original content, the poster in this community is not OP. The person who posts in this community isn’t necessarily endorsing whatever the post is talking about and they are not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

You are welcome to discuss and debate any topic but arguments are not welcome here. I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. Report argumentative comments, then ignore them.

There is currently no rule about how recent a post needs to be because the community is about the comeback part, not the topic.

Rules:

• Be civil and remember the human.

• No trolling, insults or name calling. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone.

• No bigotry of any kind, including homophobia, transphobia, sexism and racism.

• You are welcome to discuss and debate any topic but arguments are not welcome here. I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. Report argumentative comments, then ignore them.

• Try not to get too political. A lot of these posts will involve politics, but this isn’t the place for political arguments.

• Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguements sake.

• Mark NSFW posts if they contain nudity.

• Satire is allowed but please start the post title with [satire] so other users can filter it out if they’d like.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  4. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum.
  5. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  6. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  7. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  8. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS