If anyone keeps saying “Molotov Ribbentrop pact” bull- than show them Appeasement or Hakims vids.
No. By agreeing to split sovereign nations into spheres of influence and supplying Germany with raw materials the Soviet Union went beyond self defense. That argument is a complete joke.
I also don’t understand the need to defend the Soviet Union. What’s wrong with them allying with the Nazis almost a century ago? Why are you defending a defunct state lol
Alllying, and it’s just buying time to prepare for invasion and retaking lands Poland tried to colonise after their government abandoned the country. Did you know France wanted to form a proto-Coal and Steel Community with Adolf, and Poland even had a bloody non-aggression pact with him! Let’s not forget when the Allies threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves, giving one of the most industrialised countries to the Nazis without a single bullet fired! If the Pact counts as allies, what was the West then?
By agreeing to a pact of non-aggression, the USSR bought time to prepare for war. What would you have done instead? When your decision would’ve affected millions of people?
Well it’s not a pact of non aggression when you’re planning the aggression.
But I don’t know why you are defensive…? It’s literally a century ago.
Because studying history helps us understand the present. A lot of anti-USSR tropes used in the past are still used today.
It’s basically the reason why people mention Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam as examples of the US media lying to justify invasion: if you look at the pattern of constant lies that the US does, then you probably won’t trust them when they go “trust me guys, [insert country here] is totally evil and we need to spread democracy there”
Lol that’s a little ironic
In what way?
Also, you didn’t answer the question: what were the Soviets supposed to do?
Because you called it a non-aggression pact and then in the next comment talk about how the US does it too.
But you’re not acknowledging it’s the same mechanism. An empire, a government of mass power plays the messaging game so their imperial goals are shrouded in loyalty and misinformation.
Russia agreed to spheres of influence, to slicing up Poland and then engaged in violence on another country. You called that a non-aggression pact. Like c’mon man…
Nazis and communists are pretty much polar opposites. Nazis reassert capitalist power and do extermination campaigns. Communists suppress capitalist power and do dastardly things like education campaigns.
They have no reason to work together and haven’t historically. But the dominant capitalist world order would sure like people to believe they’re the same, so that justifiable hatred of nazis can be transformed into unjustifiable hatred of communists. This pushes people in a corner where they believe the major groups who tried to make the world fundamentally better were all secretly evil, so therefore we just have to do tweaks in the margins with the system we have.
If people believe, correctly, that the USSR was overall a liberating force in the world that uplifted millions of people and put an end to one of the most genocidal powers of its era, then they have to admit communism can be really good. And the capitalists do not like that one bit. Some capitalists may be ridiculous people, but the capitalists as a class, on the whole, are not stupid. They understand that communists have been, and still are, the singular liberating force that truly dismantles capital’s control in the world and gives it back to the people. So they viciously lie, slander, assassinate, and war, however much it takes, to destroy the threat.
This is irrelevant. I don’t know why you think ideologies prevent alliances or cooperation
Either it is relevant and strange pacts between diametrically opposed ideologies requires careful understanding of the historical conditions that would explain it. (Which you have not dug into at all.)
Or it is irrelevant, in which case, diametrically opposed ideologies being allies temporarily does not reflect on the character of the ideology in practice or the state practicing it.
Either way, it comes out to the same thing: Pointing at the Molotov Ribbentrop pact as a means of saying “USSR bad” is a bunch of bullshit.
Personally, I believe in the first one, that it is relevant but that claiming strange allies as a means of disparaging the integrity of one is dishonest rather than clarifying. An example of actually existing strange allies would be capitalist Russia and the DPRK. But this can be explained somewhat by the regional proximity and the need for disparate states to find common ground in surviving the onslaught of the western empire.
It is relevant in the fact it happened and played a part in history.
It is irrelevant what the ideologies were. This isn’t the first time opposed ideologies, which aren’t actually that oppositional it’s just in our scope they are, worked together. Actual diametrically opposed ideologies would be like an anarchist working with a totalitarian fascist.
But it didn’t happen in the way that you are implying it did. Nazi Germany and the USSR were never allies in the sense of working in lockstep toward shared interests. I mean, for god’s sake, watch the video that this thread is about; it’s not even a long video, there is no excuse for not watching it if you have to time to go back and forth with me. It shows in simplified steps the efforts the USSR made to ally with others against Nazi Germany and how they eventually had to do a non-aggression pact to buy time because others turned them away.
🙄 c’mon man it was a century ago. Why are you defending it?
It was an alliance. It was an agreement to overpower another country.
Did the Soviet Union invade Poland? Yes. Did they agree to do so while Germany did the same? Yes.
