Tankies... defend this

Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact

The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement:

Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers.

Article II. Should one of the High Contracting Parties become the object of belligerent action by a third Power, the other High Contracting Party shall in no manner lend its support to this third Power.

Article III. The Governments of the two High Contracting Parties shall in the future maintain continual contact with one another for the purpose of consultation in order to exchange information on problems affecting their common interests.

Article IV. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties shall participate in any grouping of Powers whatsoever that is directly or indirectly aimed at the other party.

Article V. Should disputes or conflicts arise between the High Contracting Parties over problems of one kind or another, both parties shall settle these disputes or conflicts exclusively through friendly exchange of opinion or, if necessary, through the establishment of arbitration commissions.

Article VI. The present Treaty is concluded for a period of ten years, with the proviso that, in so far as one of the High Contracting Parties does not advance it one year prior to the expiration of this period, the validity of this Treaty shall automatically be extended for another five years.

Article VII. The present treaty shall be ratified within the shortest possible time. The ratifications shall be exchanged in Berlin. The Agreement shall enter into force as soon as it is signed.

[The section below was not published at the time the above was announced.]

Secret Additional Protocol.

Article I. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.

Article II. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narev, Vistula and San.

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.

In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

Article III. With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares its complete political disinteredness in these areas.

Article IV. This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.

Moscow, August 23, 1939.

For the Government of the German Reich v. Ribbentrop

Plenipotentiary of the Government of the U.S.S.R. V. Molotov

Other urls found in this thread:


Uh defend what?


Explain how that bit benefits international Socialism, if you would.

They did literally nothing wrong in that situation.


Imperialist powers turned their backs on weaker European countries which ended in their destruction. Soviet Union got time to get stronger than Germany to defeat fascist armies.
How would doing otherwise help international socialism?

Okay, but that's not a Socialist or anti-fascist foreign policy is it? To let Europe fall to Fascism while hoarding as much territory on the periphery as possible?

The Soviet Union was far weaker than Germany by 1941 than it had been in 1939. In 1939, the Germans faced a war on two fronts, didn't have the resources of occupied Europe, or the material from the defeated French, Yugoslav, Polish, Greek, Benelux and Scandinavian states.

You could argue the Red Army was a mess in 1939 (and I would agree, what with Stalin purging all the Generals), but it was more than capable of defeating the skeleton force that the Germans left in the Central Government when they moved West before the Invasion of France.

That might be true, but why not going a back little bit more? In 1938 was equipment and amount of tanks of ČSR and Germany pretty much same, not to mention bunkers built around border because war was expected. ČSR however lacked manpower to defeat German Reich, which could be easily provided by Soviet Union and German reich would simply be forced to Balkanize into bunch of socialist republics, without genocide of Jews and gypsies, blietzkrieg impossible to execute, and SU would be seen as major peacekeeping force in Europe.

Do you think the Soviets had telepathy or something? Most people couldn't have guessed France would lose in a month. You're just nitpicking at this point

Polish deserved it after soviet-polish war.

Soviet Union offered Czechoslovakia protection, but France cucked out, and Britain forced them to give up Sudetenland, and even to join the Allies, which Poland blocked.


TL;DR: capitalist leaders would rather see their countries ravaged by other capitalist leaders than accept socialist help to prevent it.

It's two consenting individuals protecting their private property through the NAP

Lmao, so because Capitalist nations are imperialistic and opportunistic, Communists should just sit by and watch Fascism expand its control.

Good Marxism guys, 10/10.

Fascism is still capitalism.

What should they have done?

I'm sure the Communists, Socialists, Jews and the rest of the people in the concentration camps might argue that it's a few degrees worse to live in a Fascist state than a Capitalist one.

Live up to their Communist principles. Refuse Hitler the use of Soviet raw materials, refuse to partition Poland and Eastern Europe (useless territory anyway by 1941, the Red Army's move into former Baltic and Polish territory meant abandoning prior fortifications and supply lines, meaning by the time the Fascists invaded the Red Army was still unprepared). Not purge the Red Army for bogus political reasons, leaving it completely headless once the Fascists invaded.

Are you denying that fascism is capitalism?

Are you saying you'd view them interchangeably?

Or you can stop fucking whining, and realize that liberal democracies would support fascists against USSR if USSR decided to strike first.


You are avoiding to answer my question, which is about classification.

What I'm essentially asking you: "Do you deny that bonobos and humans are apes?" To which you answer: "But can't you see the difference?"

Answer the question, you slippery faggot.

They don't even have to strike first, merely tie up Axis troops along the border and starve Germany's industry of supplies.


I never said anything about Fascism's mode of production (which is Capitalistic, with heavy state intervention in some sectors of the economy, along with some feudal throwbacks, including the serf-like work passporting system), you're the one spinning off into a debate about economic systems.

I'm interested that ☭TANKIE☭s are apparently arguing that Fascist states are no worse than Capitalist ones, which I would (sort of) understand coming from an Impossiblist or LeftCom, but is bizarre coming from Stalinists.


An example.

In the interwar western capitalist democracies, there were (intermittently) legal mass Communist Parties which took part in elections, capacity building campaigns, overt activism, etc.

Can you point to a single Fascist state in which this was possible?

It's got distinct features. Don't really know what you're losing your mind over famalam.

The United States is now responsible for more deaths of innocents than Nazi Germany, Chinese National Government flooded and starved millions of their own people, Poland was pursuing its own anti-semitic and anti-communist policies, UK just couldn't fucking stop starving Indians and the Irish, and France spent 14 years straight at war with their own colonies after WW2.

But hey! At least commies got to play at parliamentary elections with the booj, so that's alright.

You're not arguing with me then, you're arguing with Lenin.

I don't mean to alarm you, but that might be because Nazi Germany doesn't exist any longer.

I don't see where he says that being allowed to participate in parliamentary elections makes what the capitalist states are doing okay.

Where did I say that?

Every fucking capitalist country that ever existed at every time had distinct features, you pseud faggot. Your relativization ("capitalistic" – apeistic to continue the parallel) of fascism's mode of production serves a double-edged liberal ideology that operates by:
1). moving the emphasis from the Marxist, socio-economic question of what a society is to a subjectivist democratic comparative game of which one is "better." This allows you to disregard the fact (that only the first analysis could show you) that fascism is exactly the capitalist's last resort and that your democratic game is which gave us fascism to begin with.
2.) your move from 1.) allows you to equate governmental forms freed from socio-historic context (le totalitarianism).

Your game, this shit thread, could be translated as such:

now go and kill yourself, you pseud


I'm not going to be rude, but two things can simultaneously be bad, whilst being different degrees of bad.




I'd go through that, but there's not really any point given I've not talked about the Soviet Union's governmental form, meaning your whole post is complete projection on your part.

If you want to strawman me as an Anarchist for apparently equating the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, then congratulations I guess, except I've not said that once, nor do I believe it to be true. I've also not argued for 'Totalitarianism' anywhere. But hey, it it helps you sleep at night.


Where? Is criticising the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in 1939-1941 the same as calling it 'communism'? No, of course it's not.
Strawmanning and ad hominem are different things fam.
Post something incisive then, that's not just assuming my position.
I literally posted a single link showing that Leninists should not utterly disregard elections inside Liberal Democratic states, and you've had a meltdown.

Wordfilters, eh?

What's supposed to be the point of this?
What should I be "defending"?
Absolute garbage of a thread.

Dude, the USSR was utterly fucked in the late 1920's and early 1930s and had exactly zero chance of fighting off Nazi Germany's rapidly expanding Wehrmacht if they actually tried to intervene with them. They knew it, the Germans knew it, the westerners knew it. They also knew that Nazi Germany was not yet ready to invade the USSR. Both sides had no actual interest in a peace treaty, everyone knew from the mid 1920s on that the next war was inevitable, and every side involved was scrambling to do what they could to buy themselves a few more years to prepare. It fucking sucks that a shitton of innocent people ended up being fed into the grinder for this to happen, but the alternative was the USSR jumping the gun and trying to get into a military conflict long before they had remotely the industrial capacity to fight any kind of extended war and ultimately throwing out any chance they had built up at resisting the Germans.

I mean, it would be impressive if the Soviets had defeated the Nazis in the 1920s or early 1930s, given the Nazis weren't in power then. I'll assume you're talking about 1936-39 though.

By 1936 the Red Army was one of the most developed in Europe, with one of the largest (if not the largest) contingent of tanks, airplanes, and munitions, with a well developed heavy industrustrial base. It had also constructed an equivalent of the Maginot line, from the border with the Baltic states to the Pripet marshes, abandoned after the Red Army moved into annexed territory.

The Soviets didn't have to immediately push west, although it wouldn't have been outside the bounds of reality if they hadn't decimated their officer core, but hold the German Army back, at a point where the Germans barely had any pool of motorised vehicle, which would have made the lightning advances of 1941 impossible (there's no point racing off in a Panzer if your support is days to your rear. The Germans cannibalising the French Army's lavish motorised vehicles is what made Operation Barbarossa possible.

In 1939 Germany is almost also without allies, Italy hadn't entered the war yet, nor had Hungary or Romania. The lack of manpower the Wehrmacht suffered would have been far greater, and the length of the frontline shortened significantly.

Simple enough. The Soviet Union needed time to arm (they estimated themselves it would take until 1942), the pact seemed to give them time, and a part of Poland too.

You can't spread world revolution when you are militarily defeated by the Nazi's because you went at them half-cocked.

Obviously this means they won a parliamentary victory over the NSDAP and kicked them out.

You know what I meant though.

Why people think molotov-ribbentrop is an argument against Stalin when it's the opposite? Stalin is brilliant, you are stupid.


there. now if you dont have any more questions about how the world works you can go back to your anarchist revolution in facebook farmville

why arent you doing it you bitch faggot?

Why is everyone talking about the non-aggression part?

The obviously outrageous part is the annexation of part of Poland. That's a blatant act of military expansionism.

I don't think Molotov Ribbentrop was inherently bad. But if the stories about Stalin genuinely believing Hitler wouldn't invade and having a breakdown in the days after June 22 1941 are true then he was foolish.


nothing wrong with annexing part of crypto-fascist country tbh.


Mikoyan and Khrushchev both corroborate it

Lwów is Polish.



fuck off

stop defending pre ww2 poland. It was an ugly abomination a country serving nothing but the anglo "muh balance of powers" bullshit

Its ironic considering that Trotsky was given the task of annexing Poland in the 1920`s.


You sound like the fucking USA.

"We didn't invade Iraq. We're the good guys, so it's not an invasion when we do it."

Btw, IO was being tongue-in-cheek with the first post. The tacit alliance between the USSR and Nazi Germany destroyed any credibility the Stalinist bureaucracy might have had left as the revolutionary leader of the global proletariat.

If they were actual socialists, they would have provided material support to anti-fascist revolutionaries in Germany. Instead they didn't want to rock the boat and decided to try to set up a new balance of power with the Nazis.

Absolutely disgusting.

*I was

Look there is no justification for nationalism.

You are a fucking moron. I'm not justifying nationalism you utter retard, I'm saying that invasions have nothing to do with socialism.

first of, post WW2 poland shouldn't have been created in the first place, it had the most fucked up borders after Romania.
secondly, is it really an invasion if they take land from a crumbling crypto fascist state who had no legitimacy of holding said land in the first place.

you are justifying nationalism
nobody said the invasion was "socialist". We can argue over this all we want, the Poles were fucking oppresive over the people they occupied and you're defending them.


This is literally no different than saying "Saddam was bad, so anyone who opposed the US invasion of Iraq was supporting Iraqi nationalism."

Do you realize how fucking ridiculous you sound yet or should I provide more examples of your imperialist logic?

You've literally never read Marx, Engels, Lenin, or any socialist for that matter.

trust me, I hate myself for defending Stalin so tell, what's the logical conclusion? Letting Poles colonize them?

The logical conclusion is the exact same conclusion every socialist worth anything at all came to in WW1: Spreading and aiding socialist revolution.

The answer to WW2 was revolutionary defeatism, just like it was during WW1. The fact that the majority of socialists seem to think that those two wars were somehow qualitatively different just goes to show that most socialists are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

They were, in terms not just political systems but in terms of geopolitics and other factors. To deny this would be moronic.

Obviously they were DIFFERENT, but I said qualitatively different, as in they represented fundamentally different conflicts.

They didn't. Both wars were directly caused by and in service of imperialism and monopoly capitalism. The proper socialist position would be to advocate for military self-defense on part of the USSR and semi-colonial countries, and proletarian revolution in the major Allied and Axis powers. Any other line was incorrect and provably so.

They're more genuinely communist than Xi

rightful soviet clay
besides poland got restored eventually so who cares

it stinks of imperialism to me

made by libcom gang



Nice meme. Poland can fuck off back to the Curzon line.

answer the point I made. the soviets were hypocrites.

You didn't make a point you retarded nigger; annexation isn't imperialism.

keep that mantra going until you're prepared to actually fucking say something

Why does the anti-tank left like Polish nationalism so much?

" Lets alow the germans to genocide more them half of europe guys, thats totaly a good praxis."

Its becouse they need a good bullshit rhetoric to follow and since the poles are historicaly profesional victims they are the easiest to believe.

Leftypol is niggers dragging whites all over the floor.

Literally Niggers Brainwashing Whites.

Are the wordfilters fucking up that, or is it just gibberish?

In fact I am an opertunistic person.

Do You want to challenge my words with facts?

I live the perfect lie a lie that is the ultimate truth and I have no problems sharing…. Do You want to play?


Il stick around for 10 more minutes.
Debate me OP


Atleast tell me what to do to trigger You.

the absolute state of anarkiddies

Are you broken?

I am, please teach me.

sandinista flag, interesting, the mentally impaired anarkiddies are at it again
wow, really got us this time, lol

Seriously, If I wanted to become a Lefty, How Would You teach a perfect example like me.

I am willing, I would honestly give it my best shot to embrace Lefty culture. (I really would)

Why not?

I don't know if you can't read, or are having some other difficulties, but I'm not an Anarchist, and said so in this thread.

You know how the old lion dies who is old, the other lions start picking at him, the other animals start to notice the lion getting picked on.

and then the lion gets up and tears the shit out of em.

Teach me how to be a lefty.
Teach Me Your ways.



This is your brain on Stalinism.

And maybe if the USSR actually gave a shit about genocide they wouldn't have provided immense military and economic assistance to the Nazis and even tried to become an official member of the Axis before Hitler went crazy.

You can stop false-flagging, cretin.


Try being a little less historically illiterate.

No, really, you're too retarded to be a 4.

The fact that you think a healthy workers' state would even consider doing this just goes to show how far gone you are.

Lenin would gotten into a fist fight with anyone who even so much as suggested an official military alliance with Nazi Germany. Pure insanity, on par with the worst social patriotism and imperialist apologia.

What military alliance? The Pact of Steel was a military alliance. The Tripartite Pact was defensive.

Besides, why be upset about ink on paper? USSR broke Molotov-Ribbentrop, too.

You're that "LARP" guy aren't you?

The USSR was literally trying to become a FOURTH MEMBER OF THE AXIS, you fucking dick. Did you even read the TITLE of the article, let alone the introduction?

And those military trades and economic deals weren't "ink on paper". Imagine how shitty of a position the Nazis would have been in if Stalin devoted even a small fraction of the resources he put into the trade deals with Hitler to funding, training, and arming revolutionary workers all over Germany and Poland.


Do you people even know how to read? Serious question.

Well, Germany killed all the revolutionary workers, and Poland blocked Soviet entry into the Allies, so…

You really need to read beyond the title, and stop obsessing over overpriced raw materials Germany had to buy.

You're delusional if you think there weren't a significant percentage of German workers in 1940 who were still praying for proletarian revolution.
All the more reason to aid revolution there.

It's not obsession. If Stalin had told Hitler to fuck off, Germany would have been facing two hostile powers on either side of the continent far sooner than it did and very well could have fallen years before it did, saving millions of lives and potentially preventing the Holocaust.

Don't get me wrong, the Allies were no heroes either. There were no heroes in WW2. Just a bunch of imperialist capitalist powers and their victims, plus a Stalinist bureaucracy too chickenshit to embrace revolutionary defeatism like the actual intellectual heirs of Lenin would have.

[citation needed]
Not really, Poland was a mistake. It shouldn't have been given German territory either.
Germany was already facing two hostile powers on both sides. How was USSR supposed to know that the would fall in months?
y tho?
Britain getting the piss beaten out of them was the reason their Empire dissolved. France didn't, so they spent 14 years straight at war with their colonies, and maintain a shadow colonial empire to this day.

Yo, I was just skimming through here, but I had to stop here when I read this just so that I could tell you that this may be the gayest thing I have ever read.

Molotov did nothing wrong. Osadniks deserved it.

What right did Poland have to rule over a majority ethnic Ukrainian and Belorussian population? The chauvinist supremacism, anti-Ukrainian and anti-Belorussian racism of the Polish regime was known and criticized even in Western countries like France.

Honestly, there's nothing wrong with this. The #1 enemy of the people worldwide at the time was British imperialism. A joint German-Soviet strike against "Great" Britain would have liberated hundreds of millions from colonial slavery much earlier than in our timeline.


But they didn't, did they user?

Just because they associated with Not Socialist germany it is bad?


No, they didn't, so make a non retarded thread about how actually, the Brits and the French were pretty fucking cosy with the nazis, whilst the soviets wanted them dead as soon as possible

I don't think you understand the context of the period dude, it was not a time where you could just sit on your ass and watch things happen while expecting some spontaneous revolution. If the soviets never intervened then capitalism would either be more brutal now or we'd be living under fascism.


it should've been inevitable

Did the Brits and the French end up cooperating with the nazis?

They were scared shitless to fight them militarily.

Backround to this pact
1933-1938 Soviet-Japanese border War
1936 Anti commitern pact
1936 Second Italo-Ethiopian War
1938 Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia
1938 Soviets offer Poland, France and Germany to stop fascism early. The west refuses.
1940 Axis power is formed

Or in other words, Soviets knew that Nazis are going to invade, but they needed to gain some time to prepare.

who gives a fuck about socialism? it was a battle of personalities, and Stalin completely cucked the anglos.

No. What the did wrong was not annexing everything east and west of the Oder line.
Daily reminder: Nationalism is for liberals



Soviets had a firm cassus belli. Take back Russian lands.

Soviets gave Poland a lot of German land in return.

Hitler even wrote a book about it. But apparently buying time in the face of open imperial aspirations is some sort of "unholy alliance".
As opposed to the allies, who were willing to throw Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Benelux - and later even France under the bus.
Does anyone have that quote of Churchill admitting he would have supported a joint-war against the USSR if they hadn't declared war on the western Allies?
Western porkies intended to use Germany against the Soviet Union. The plan backfired completely.

this entire thread tl;dr:

the pact was a fucking obvious choice for anyone that isnt either a complete fucking retard or a suicidal idealistic mental patient.
poland was fucked by deafult being both the gateway fro soviet influnece to europe and germanys gateway for eastward expansion.
and when france and england tought they could have the USSR and germany annahilate eachoter, effectively leaving the anglos and french the only continental powers, it was obvious poland would be thrown under the bus.
aside from some "hard worded announcments" in the press the anglos didnt do anything when poland got steamrolled.

but when the molotiv-ribbentrop pact was signed, allowing germany to focus on england and france, instead of killing itself and the USSR in a big eastern war, the anglos started autistically screeching and threw france under the bus too because they didnt wanna waste their own men on fighting germany.

I'm not entirely sure I can express how wrong that is when referring to the Soviet Union's foreign policy between 1939-41.

I think the worst thing about the Pact is how when the war started in June 41, an absolute shitton of Soviet planes were literally just destroyed on the ground. wtf was the Red Army doing

timoshenko's fault
another general was executed


Stalin's fault (as usual).


srsly kys



20th century called and it wants its meme-apologists back.

Who is Grover Furr?

Meme Stalin apologist, who for whatever reason has made it his life's work to pretend Stalin did nothing wrong ever, through badly written screeds about how nobody else knows how great Stalin was.

did actual research and is therefore quite hated by trotskyites and liberals because they can't formulate arguments against the facts he presents

i mean, look at the replies here
"hurr hurr it's grover furr gotcha lol almost had to make an argument but i see you are quoting someone i disagree with because i simply recognize the name haha!"

Yeah, great research.

Aside from the fact that, even if you believe Furr, that means Stalin was willing to accommodate the Polish Military Government remaining in a rump state along his border, meaning the Soviets would have gotten nothing out of the Partition, and given half of Poland to the Germans for free.

Lmao, this gets even better.

Oh no, we can't possibly annoy the Nazis, that would be rude.

This. I mean holy shit it's like people have no concept of political warfare and tactics.

The Germans were comparably far stronger in 1941 than in 1939.

so was the ussr

i support anarchists to be used as fuel for ovens after the revolution


If France caught Germany while it was stuck in Ardennes, Germany would lose fast, and extremely embarrassingly.

i cant beleive you seriously used that argument, and that you went on and posted it without your retarded brain even thinking what people are gonna say to you like here
you anarchist fags are seriously the worst kind of idealistic cancer the left can provide.
you screech about everything but when it comes down to you all you do is smoke pot draw letters on public bathrooms

in that case the anglos and french would just give germany "a second chance" and have them repent in fighting a war of annahilation against the soviets.
so prettymuch exactly what they wanted germany to do in the first place

Stalin got very close to it postwar. Had Truman decided to remove US troops from Western Germany (say in favor of British or French control) to deal with the situation in China and Korea, Stalin would have had a AAA spot to quickly blitz through the rest of Germany then knock out Paris. Truman would then be left having to put out fires in both France and China simultaneously, this would have likely pushed him towards using the bomb on civilian targets like Beijing which would have caused Stalin to do the same onto places like Athens or Rome, which were successfully resisting communist revolutions at the time. This would have more or less caused most of Eurasia to be dominated by Moscow.

The only reason this didn't happen was because America's civilian command at the time was extremely concerned about use of the bomb and played the game very conservatively. This caused China and half of Korea to fall red, but prevented a Soviet advance in Europe.

If US troops were gone, both France and England would have quickly chosen appeasement again while the Red Army (peacefully) marched to the French border which is where the third world war would have started. By the time American bombers could arrive in England for refueling, Paris would already be captured and France knocked out as Stalin moves to fortify Normandy and deal with Franco.

Red Poland is Best Poland

how does that fit in any possible way in what i said?

The governments of England and France are unironically cucks and would have been quickly raped by Russians if it wasn't for America being on the front line instead.

and where does that scenario come into play in what ive said? germany would be fighting the soviets while the french and anglos waited them out

Okay fam. You might want to look up armament statistics, manpower levels, and division strength for the USSR and Axis in 1939 and 1941 though. Just a hint.

the USSR was preparing their entire infrastructure for war after 39. from moving factories eastward to developing new weapons that would come just in time in 41. the USSR would have lost in a war in 39 simply due to the fact that it was exactly what the anglos and french planned.
go back


No one is mentioning the obvious propaganda victory if Germany attacks the Soviet Union first (which it eventually must do) rather than the free propaganda the nazis get if the USSR attacks first (which it had no intention of doing)?

Plus Hitler did more to cement Stalin's rule over the USSR than Stalin ever did himself. Even people who aren't communists in the USSR will see the germans chimping out and fight for their motherland, hence the name of the war in Russia.

Those who refuse to look past capitalism deserve to be struck from the face of the earth. This goes all the way back to the bible. The wicked receive only wrath from history. It is wrong for a socialist country to attempt to "save" a non-socialist people from their own history when they can barely protect themselves as it is.


we werent talking about that scenario dumbass

I have never seen any genuine support among Poles for Communist rule, whereas most of the former WARPAC countries show some respect for the time period.

Is there anyone who would seriously argue a Soviet-German alliance against Britain wouldn't have been an incredibly good thing, liberating hundreds of millions from British and French colonialism?

Anyone with half a brain should be able to work out that the Nazis are hardly anti-colonialists.

Hitler wanted a colonial empire in Eastern Europe. But he also wanted to incite colonial peoples against the Western imperialists. See his close relationship with Arab and Muslim leaders.


Hitler wanted British colonies to revolt because it would make his war against Britain easier, not because of any anti-imperialism on his part.

It would be like saying the French Monarchy and Spanish Crown were anti-imperialist for helping the Thirteen Colonies revolt against Britain.

Hitler attacks French colonialism, blames his government for wrongheaded pro-colonial policies:

Hitler regrets allying with Mussolini, alienating potential Arab sympathizers:

Not at all a fan of Hitler or the Nazi ideology btw

It doesn't matter what Hitler thought for a few hours before he offed himself, it matters what he did.

if Hitler was a socialist Stalin would have joined the Axis powers in a second. He hated Jews just as much as Hitler did

Tell me more about this.

t. Anarkiddie who loves Proudhon and Bakunin

he was a georgian hick and was very familiar with jewish linches in his youth. and he didnt trust jews in the bolshevik circle just as they didnt trust him, but he was a strongman both in the caucases and later in the capital and lenin needed him. the second lenin was gone, stalin acted accordingly for a political animal and offed trotsky, his bolshevik old guard, and then the international bolshevik backers (most of which were jews). then the purges went on with the jewish oblast and the doctors plot, at which point the remaining big guys put a stop to it.
you should read Young Stalin and On the court of the red tsar

every time


Zionist anti-communist propaganda

Stalin sounds based asf. I've never read his political writings but his poetry is some of the best works of romanticism out there. The English translations are excellent. People are way too hard on this guy.

bullshit, Stalin was extremely harsh against antisemitism.

Because we shouldn't lie, stall or falsely allude to our enemies at all, it would just be too mean. We should THROW OURSELVES at them and get killed instantly instead.

yeah on the outside. if he went after every single jew just because they were jews not because the guys who were a threat to him happened to be jews he would fuck up the entire soviet infrastructure.
thats why he literally went one step at the time. first he purged trotsky and other no.1 enemies, then the rest of the soviet leadership, then the army, then the civillian sector, which led to the doctors plot.

But enough about Zhukov, why did Stalin purge all the competent generals?

Your Zhukov joke is contradictory because he was indeed the most competent soviet general

I don't think you can look at Zhukov and see a particularly talented General. He was good at throwing men and material at problems, but Rokossovsky and Tukhachevsky were far more talented.

is this purposefully trying to pretend coming across like a retarded person throwing himself hurdles between the legs?

it just never finds an end, they keep grasping and reaching, they're up to their elbow in their own ass and just keep throwing shit
and then feel insulted and mistreated when you look at them like a retarded person throwing feces in public and screeching

i'm getting more and more driven to favor euthanasia for mentally handicapped people

It was critical support to German socialists against 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Anglo🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 imperialist ambitions. Literally nothing wrong with it


Socialism is when the state does stuff, opposes the hegemonic empire and uses red flags. So yes


Why is Stalin standing next to Dr. Niles Crane?