No, because the USSR was trying to align with France and England as soon as the Nazis came to power in a policy known as “Collective Security” which, as someone interested in the fight against fascism, I’m sure you’ll be very interested to read about. If you want concrete, easy evidence, here you have a Telegraph (not suspicious of being Tankie I hope, although you guys use that term so lightly you may be convinced they’re Tankies too) showing how Stalin offered to send 1 million troops together with aviation and artillery to England and France on the condition that a mutual defense agreement could be reached. Why England and France rejected, two countries which unpromptedly sent tens of thousands of soldiers to the Tsar loyalists when the civil war between them and the Bolsheviks began, is up to anyone to guess.
My utmost respect for all brave people who fought against nazism, including US soldiers, but comparing the USSR’s policy against Nazism to that of the US and putting them on the same plane is just ridiculous.
aimed to divide Poland between USSR and nazi 3rd Reich?
That’s literally a revisionist talking point. As I’ve shown, the USSR was the first country in Europe to try and pursue a policy of collective security and mutual defense against fascism, which was rejected for years by England and France. The fact is that the newly born USSR wasn’t industrialised enough to fight fascism alone, as proven by the 20+ million soviet peoples who died in the war against Nazism, so they tried mutual defense with England and France in the first place, and when they rejected, they made appeasement pacts with the Nazis (just as many other European countries did). Or are we so quick to forget that the then Polish Empire also got territorial gains from peace agreements with Hitler?
Try to tell these fairytales in some Baltic countries
You mean the same Baltic countries that achieved independence because the Bolsheviks literally allowed them to? You should read upon how, for example Finland but many other countries in Eastern Europe, got their independence from the russian empire. Finland, as an example, was part of the Russian Empire for centuries. After the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, in a historically unprecedented and extremely progressive constitution, the Bolsheviks allowed for the self-determination of all peoples of the former Russian Empire. The Finns voted out, and they were out. Please, I beg you to come up with any historical precedent of a democratic secession before that one. How is that not anti-imperialism?
The fact that the soviet union invaded certain eastern-european countries in preparation for a war against the Nazis isn’t “Russian imperialism”, it’s preparation against Nazism. In fact, as soon as the USSR retreated from Finland after its invasion, Finland was quick to ally with the Nazis, to the point that Finnish soldiers were fighting in the siege of Leningrad. Again, how quick are we to forgive and forget a literal alliance with the Nazis when we want to, huh? Nobody in their right mind would accuse the Finnish of being imperialists and “as bad as the Nazis” nowadays, and rightfully so, because their decision to help Germany was probably motivated by the recent past. The same applies to the USSR reaching a peace agreement to prevent the 20+ million deaths that ended up happening as a consequence of the war.
I seriously suggest that you revise where this reactionary reinterpretation of history is coming from. In France in 1950, 70+% of people polled answered that France was saved because of the USSR. If you ask nowadays, it’s less than 20%. History is being rewritten by reactionaries, and by saying shit like “USSR was imperialist and allied with the Nazis to invade Poland!!!”, the only thing we’re doing is being unfaithful to history, and propagating fascist talking points.
No, because the USSR was trying to align with France and England as soon as the Nazis came to power in a policy known as “Collective Security” which, as someone interested in the fight against fascism, I’m sure you’ll be very interested to read about. If you want concrete, easy evidence, here you have a Telegraph (not suspicious of being Tankie I hope, although you guys use that term so lightly you may be convinced they’re Tankies too) showing how Stalin offered to send 1 million troops together with aviation and artillery to England and France on the condition that a mutual defense agreement could be reached. Why England and France rejected, two countries which unpromptedly sent tens of thousands of soldiers to the Tsar loyalists when the civil war between them and the Bolsheviks began, is up to anyone to guess.
My utmost respect for all brave people who fought against nazism, including US soldiers, but comparing the USSR’s policy against Nazism to that of the US and putting them on the same plane is just ridiculous.
Is this USSR “anti”-nazi, “anti”-imperialist policy behind the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, aimed to divide Poland between USSR and nazi 3rd Reich?
Try to tell these fairytales in some Baltic countries or middle Europe in public.
That’s literally a revisionist talking point. As I’ve shown, the USSR was the first country in Europe to try and pursue a policy of collective security and mutual defense against fascism, which was rejected for years by England and France. The fact is that the newly born USSR wasn’t industrialised enough to fight fascism alone, as proven by the 20+ million soviet peoples who died in the war against Nazism, so they tried mutual defense with England and France in the first place, and when they rejected, they made appeasement pacts with the Nazis (just as many other European countries did). Or are we so quick to forget that the then Polish Empire also got territorial gains from peace agreements with Hitler?
You mean the same Baltic countries that achieved independence because the Bolsheviks literally allowed them to? You should read upon how, for example Finland but many other countries in Eastern Europe, got their independence from the russian empire. Finland, as an example, was part of the Russian Empire for centuries. After the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, in a historically unprecedented and extremely progressive constitution, the Bolsheviks allowed for the self-determination of all peoples of the former Russian Empire. The Finns voted out, and they were out. Please, I beg you to come up with any historical precedent of a democratic secession before that one. How is that not anti-imperialism?
The fact that the soviet union invaded certain eastern-european countries in preparation for a war against the Nazis isn’t “Russian imperialism”, it’s preparation against Nazism. In fact, as soon as the USSR retreated from Finland after its invasion, Finland was quick to ally with the Nazis, to the point that Finnish soldiers were fighting in the siege of Leningrad. Again, how quick are we to forgive and forget a literal alliance with the Nazis when we want to, huh? Nobody in their right mind would accuse the Finnish of being imperialists and “as bad as the Nazis” nowadays, and rightfully so, because their decision to help Germany was probably motivated by the recent past. The same applies to the USSR reaching a peace agreement to prevent the 20+ million deaths that ended up happening as a consequence of the war.
I seriously suggest that you revise where this reactionary reinterpretation of history is coming from. In France in 1950, 70+% of people polled answered that France was saved because of the USSR. If you ask nowadays, it’s less than 20%. History is being rewritten by reactionaries, and by saying shit like “USSR was imperialist and allied with the Nazis to invade Poland!!!”, the only thing we’re doing is being unfaithful to history, and propagating fascist talking points.
Thank you for marking at start that reading of all the rest is waste of time.
As expected, when you bring up actually historical points to the table, the anti-communists run away. Have a good one mate.