104

In Ukraine, Killings of Surrendering Russians Divide an American-Led Unit (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 4 months ago by nekandro@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

68 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 4 months ago

Molotov-Ribbentrop is a great example of liberals not being able to think for themselves. Hitler literally wrote in Mein Kampf that his goal was to destroy the communist movement, occupy Russia, and enslave the Slavs. It is literally impossible for the Soviets to believe they could form an alliance, which means your conclusion that Molotov-Ribbentrop constitutes meaningful collaboration is incorrect.

If you study the history around it, the USSR wanted absolutely nothing to do with war after its revolution because it wanted to focus all of its efforts on building a new nation. The treaty was negotiated in attempt to delay armed conflict as much as possible and to take advantage of contradictions in capitalism/fascism to create that extra time.

[+] sunzu@kbin.run -20 points 4 months ago

which means your conclusion that Molotov-Ribbentrop constitutes meaningful collaboration is incorrect.

Enough to split up Poland tho haha

Cope harder boy

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

Western powers collaboration with the Nazis (earlier) and the gifting of Czechoslovakia for Hitler to go east, conveniently forgotten

[+] sunzu@kbin.run -17 points 4 months ago

Now we are talking!

Doesn't execuse soviet behavior but some very valuable history that people should be aware of. Remember folks they did this back then and again in 2014 with Crimea.

No wonder Putin thought of the west as a bunch of limp dick cucks. Took Germany well into 2023 to finally change its posture. Pathetic

"Never gain" rheee

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 15 points 4 months ago

Doesn’t execuse soviet behavior but some very valuable history that people should be aware of.

Yes which you fail to contextualize. The soviets failed to find allies against Hitler before the war, and saw their collaboration in the Munich agreement and the deal with Hitler being made at their expense instead. You bringing up M-R NON AGGRESSION pact as a form of collaboration and not as a stalling of the inevitable explanation of Hitler to the east is just cope

Remember folks they did this back then and again in 2014 with Crimea.

"Fellas did you know mordern Bourgeoise Russia is the same as the soviets??"

[+] sunzu@kbin.run -14 points 4 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 months ago

Poland bro… They invaded a country together and split up. I know a bad fact for your narrative but get real here.

Two weeks after the Nazis invaded and the polish state dissolved already.

goat fuckers

Libs and being racist. Classic

[+] sunzu@kbin.run -17 points 4 months ago

Overlooking Conquest of Poland is racist bro

[-] AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It’s funny that you should mention that, because the main reason that I educated others on the subject was that I saw a Polish anticommunist trivializing the Fascist occupation just to make the Communists look worse.

https://lemmy.ml/post/14133689

I have never seen any outspoken anticommunists make an effort to properly educate others on the Fascist occupation. You just mention the ‘splitting of Poland’ over and over again like that’s good in its own right and we’ll automatically download all of the details from that fact alone. This isn’t how education works.

[+] sunzu@kbin.run -17 points 4 months ago

I repeat it because guy I was chatting with acts like USSR didn't ally with Germany and didn't split another country. If invading and splitting a country supported by a treaty is not an alliance, I don't know what else is.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Then you don't know what is. Now it's time for you to learn.

The Nazis invaded Poland and dissolved the Polish government. The Soviets knew that the Nazis were going to attempt to invade Russia over the Ukrainian border, just like Napoleon did. In order to delay this, they needed Soviet troops on the ground to slow down and monitor Nazi movement, but they had no pretext for doing so. Because Germany had not yet declared war on the USSR, the solution was to create a peacetime non-aggression treaty that allowed Soviet troops to be deployed to Poland. This had the effect of getting Soviet troops on the ground without starting the hot conflict. It also had the effect of taking a portion of Poland away from the Third Reich.

You make it sound like M-R was the Soviets conspiring with the Third Reich to divide up Poland and then invading it, but that's not actually what happened. Ultimately what made the USA enter the war was that the USSR was the only country willing to liberate Europe from the Nazis, and what happened in half of Poland during M-R then happened in all of Eastern Europe - the Soviets occupied territory that would have been occupied by fascists. You can't paint occupation by the Soviets as equivalent with occupation by the Nazis when literally the only alternative to occupation by the Nazis.

[-] sunzu@kbin.run -4 points 4 months ago

You make it sound like M-R was the Soviets conspiring with the Third Reich to divide up Poland and then invading it, but that's not actually what happened

Not just Poland baltics too....

And yes that's what happened. Why are simping for a fallen empire anyway?

People who lived under Soviet rule don't earn for it.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 months ago

In fact for 30 years after the dissolution of the USSR polling indicated that well over 50% of people living in the former republics adjacent to Russia believed that the loss of the USSR was a net negative.

[-] AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 4 months ago

It was no doubt disgraceful that Soviet Russia should make any agreement with the leading Fascist state; but this reproach came ill from the statesmen who went to Munich. […] [The German–Soviet] pact contained none of the fulsome expressions of friendship which Chamberlain had put into the Anglo‐German declaration on the day after the Munich conference.

Indeed Stalin rejected any such expressions: “the Soviet Government could not suddenly present to the public German–Soviet assurances of friendship after they had been covered with buckets of filth by the [Fascist] Government for six years.” The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland. Munich had been a true alliance for partition: the British and French dictated partition to the Czechs.

The Soviet government undertook no such action against the Poles. They merely promised to remain neutral, which is what the Poles had always asked them to do and which Western policy implied also. More than this, the agreement was in the last resort anti‐German: it limited the German advance eastwards in case of war, as Winston Churchill emphasized. […] [With the pact, the Soviets hoped to ward] off what they had most dreaded—a united capitalist attack on Soviet Russia. […] It is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed.

— A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, pg. 262

When [the Fascists] attacked Poland, the Soviets moved into Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, the Baltic territories that had been taken from them by Germany, Britain, and Poland in 1919. They overthrew the [anticommunist] dictatorships that the Western counterrevolutionaries had installed in the Baltic states and incorporated them as three republics into the USSR. The Soviets also took back Western Byelorussia, the Western Ukraine, and other areas seized from them and incorporated into the Polish [anticommunist] dictatorship in 1921 under the Treaty of Riga.

This has been portrayed as proof that they colluded with the [Fascists] to gobble up Poland, but the Soviets reoccupied only the area that had been taken from them twenty years before. History offers few if any examples of a nation refusing the opportunity to regain territory that had been seized from it. In any case, as Taylor notes, by reclaiming their old boundaries, the Soviets drew a line on the [Fascist] advance which was more than what Great Britain and France seemed willing to do.

— Michael Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar, pgs. 144–145

@freagle@lemmygrad.ml and others are ‘simping’ for the USSR because that is the price that you have to pay for capitalism’s structural defects: it leaves us, the lower classes, in such destitute positions that we have nothing to lose by seeking alternatives.