I love when people pretend that the rest of Europe didn’t exist when the molotov-ribbentrop pact was signed. It’s almost as if history didn’t start until that pact signed, like Israelis pretend that history started in Oct7.
In case people aren’t aware, the Victims of Communism foundation is a US government organization that was set up by an act of congress in 1993.
Congress also passed a bill funding them to design highschool curriculum, called the “crucial communism teaching act”.
Just reminded me of a history teacher who, when teaching the Containment policy, showed us a jar with a slip of paper contained within, which read “COMMUNISM”. Displayed prominently in the classroom thereafter.
Didn’t work on me. When my assigned seat changed such that the jar and I were out of view of the teacher while at the board, I popped the lid off in front of everyone.
Lol
My high school history class stopped the tankman video right before the tank tried to move out of the way and said “this is the only footage to escape the oppressive regime. We don’t know what happened to tank man but we assume he was run over”
When I finally saw the full video I thought it was fake
Nice
Often hilarious how the history is biased by some collectives. Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done. After this the cold war, where secret US papers were filtred, specifying locations in Europe where they were going to use nuclear bombs to stop an alleged Russian invasion.
Cuba crisis, it causes almost a WWIII, because evil Russia wanted to park there nuclear missiles. What is never mentioned, was,that it was an answer to the US nuclear missiles that were parked long before in Turkey, pointing to Russia. The escalation was avoided by an Rusian commander, while the US already had the finger on the red button.
Yes, certainly communism is really bad and the US the good boys which always save the world, even by nuke civilians in two cities, training and arm jihadists and Talibans, destroying democracies supporting dictators, like the September 11 with over 3000 victims, in 1973, when the CIA organized and supported an military coup by Pinochet to eliminate Allende.
Most of the currend Wars in the world and dictatorships are direct or indirect caused by the work of our good US boys. Thank you America, GFY
Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done
The Soviet Union (and I say that to emphasize that it was not simply Russia) and other Allies also played an important role in the Pacific Theatre too once they had some breathing space. I suppose the US glorify it so aggressively because it’s one of the few major wars they were on the winning side of, but when they rapidly promoted former Nazis to high political positions and launched Operation Gladio, one can’t help but realize their troops were only sent there to stop those Nazis, not Nazism.
Anti-communism is a fancy name for fascism.
Blackshirts and Reds is a great work that goes over this.
431·2 days agoSince we’re starting this debate again, I do wish to ask the people that think the Soviets shouldn’t have gone into Poland: what should the Soviets have done?
With benefit of hindsight and access to whatever formerly-secret documents, what is the best course of action for them?
what should the Soviets have done?
shouldve stayed put and get exterminated, it is unforgivable that they had agency and made a strategic appeasements with Germany 😔 however it was perfectly ok for the rest of europe powers to do it! 🤓
Liberals think this is what WW2 was
Insert meme: Oh, I wouldn’t say “freed”, more like “under new management” 😅
It was a good thing to shut down Auschwitz, in my opinion.
Yes! Of course it was. 100%! No denying of that. :) I was rather referring to the so called “liberation of Poland” by the Soviets and all the things that happened afterwards. The puppet government of People’s Republic of Poland and all the other things.
From the Polish communists I have spoken to, the Polish People’s Republic was flawed but overall a net positive, with dramatic industrialization and improvements in quality of life. There was civil tension between the nationalists, Nazi sympathizers, and the communists. Overall, far better than Nazi occupation, and it isn’t close.
i remember a pic of an arse-faced woman showing the monthly ration provided to her by the state in poland, as if saying “look at this misery”. probably the pic was shot in the early 80s. when i first saw that the first thing that came to my mind is that, in northeastern brazil (my home region), around the same time, about 1.5 million people died of starvation and malnutrition during the drought of 1977-83, and many would literally give an arm or a leg for that ration.
Well… I’m not a fan of communism so in my opinion of course will differ. Nevertheless I think it was net negative especially because of personal freedoms (or lack there of), censorship, police brutality etc., but I totally agree that it was far better than Nazi occupation. Of course it was. It was peace time finally after all. History isn’t black and white so there were some good things from PRL (polish acronym for People’s Republic of Poland). Free education, healthcare and mass construction of public housing were some of the good ones that to this day make our lives in Poland better (the prefabricated housing especially in my opinion) but I think it could have been done without all the atrocities inflicted by the puppet government if only Poland was independent after the war and not under the de facto Soviet occupation.
Well, I am a communist, so I tend to weigh communist perspectives more heavily. It’s important to recognize that much of the opposition to the socialist system came from nationalists and far-right groups, which caused civil strife.
That’s understandable. By the way in my opinion much of the anti-sentiment towards communism in Polish society today comes from all the bad stuff the PRL government did so maybe if that didn’t happen the outlook on it today would be different. For example as a strong free speech advocate I think it’s a shame that today in Poland “promoting communism” is prohibited by law (it’s not even a normal legislation but it’s enshrined in the constitution). I personally think that shouldn’t be the case.
That’s fair, and as you point out the reaction against the socialist system is being used more for political gain by the Polish ruling class. There are other Polish users on this site, so I won’t pretend to be an expert on the PRL, but I do think you can seek out their perspectives as well if you’d like, though I’m sure you have other ways to do so given that you’re Polish yourself.
If you have an open mind and have ~3 minutes, I can recommend this short clip from a Michael Parenti lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSpVB_XXXBQ
Further “reading” if you’re interested:
World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR, led by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin respectively. As of 1 September 1939, the very first day of World War Two, both totalitarian regimes held joint military action against Poland. Starting from 1 September, German bombers were guided onto their targets in Poland from a radio station located in Minsk
In accordance with the secret protocol as to Hitler-Stalin Pact, also known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the new allies – Germany and the Soviet Union – were to jointly invade Poland. Red Army troops were to march into Poland three days following the Reich’s attack. Joseph Stalin, however, did not adhere to the protocol, with his troops advancing into Poland only 17 days after the Germans hit. The delay was caused by concerns over the propaganda discourse in the West, which Stalin wanted to focus on Germany solely.
The class struggle is a cornerstone of Karl Marx’s philosophy. It requires a restructuring of society in accordance with communism. When put in practice, this brought about genocide: the killing of 10 to 15 percent of a given society as well as annihilating its elites and those strata of society that were unwelcome in a communist state. For communists they stood in the way of communist rule and of harnessing entire societies under a totalitarian regime.
World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR
Oh? What date did this “coordinated attack” take place, and how was the coordination handled? Presuming coordinating the movements of two different armies for such a large scale operation would have required a lot of back and forth signaling and planning, all of which would have become public record when the soviet archives were opened.
It’s well documented indeed. You can read more here if you’re interested.
I don’t have access, unfortunately, though the abstract seems to be about the political situation and doesn’t mention military organization.
They go hand-in-hand, as all wars do. I’ve had a look and it’s on Anna’s archive as well.
Yeah, I found the an accessable copy and it doesn’t actually contain any of the things I was asking about. I’m guessing you were hoping nobody would check?
You sure you read the correct document?
The one I linked clearly cites soviet sources describing the USSR third reich collaborarion untill Barbarossa.
https://annas-archive.org/scidb/10.2307/826217/
I cannot find much about Soviet-German relations in it either.
You must have linked the wrong one then, because it didn’t include any of the things I described. Feel free to provide quotes from the actual one if I’m mistaken
The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few days prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
Even if September 1939 should be set as the starting point for WWII (which it should not be), the Slovak Republic played a significant rôle in invading Poland with the Third Reich, and its contribution therewith was much more of a joint effort than the Red Army’s intervention in western Ukraine. It is strange that the anticommunist’s source said nothing at all about the Slovak Republic, almost as if its omission were a political decision and the Warsaw Institute has no interest in honest education. Hmmm…
Oh, and if massacring élites were the only way to negate capitalism, it seems that the DPRK missed the memo when it disprivileged landlords.
Again, excellent work as always, comrade!
The Soviets absolutely did agree to invade, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism. The source you linked tactically omits several facts that completely undermine the narrative presented, such as the fact that the Red Army coordinated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk during the Nazi invasion, that the agreed borders of the “spheres of influence” split a sovereign nation down the middle (which is impossible if Poland had remained sovereign), the joint military victory parade in Brest, etcetera.
Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle?
If there was a genuine concern the Soviets could have guaranteed Polish independence against the Nazis. They did not, instead they jointly agreed to invade and divide the country.
The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
The UK and France declared war 2 days after Hitler invaded Poland (Hitler did not expect the UK to guarantee Poland, causing him to delay the invasion by a week while he deliberated on whether to go forward). Military spending in both the UK and France was significantly ramped up after Hitler first started showing aggression, but neither believed themselves to be ready for a war. War requires preparation, and they weren’t so delusional to believe they’d be able to avoid war forever. What neither the UK nor France expected however was that Nazi Germany’s war machine would ramp up significantly faster than their own.
What’s historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship, or claiming the “spheres of influence” were a real plan for dividing Europe and not a way for the Soviets to dissuade the Nazis from pressing too far while ramping up for war. Both the Soviets and the Nazis knew war was coming between them, the treaty was always on borrowed time and in no-way signaled long-term planning on either side, the Soviets wanted to stop the Nazi threat and the Nazis intended on wiping out the Soviets, “spheres of influence” be damned.
The Eastern Pact was the hopeful alliance between Poland and the Soviets (among others like Lithuania) against the Nazis, but this fell through due to France and Britain working against it, and Polish hatred of Russians. From the French ambassador to Poland at the time:
If, in reality, the most serious danger for Poland is Germany, “the Russian”, whatever the regime to which he is subject, always appears to the Poles as “enemy n° 1”: if the German remains an adversary, he is no less a European and a man of order; the Russian is, for the Pole, a barbarian, an Asian, a dissolving and corrupting element, with whom any contact would be perilous, any compromise fatal.
— Léon Noël, [17], 1938-06-31, Warsaw, p. 975-976
The UK and France regularly sabotaged talks of alliances with the Soviets and made their non-aggression pacts far earlier, doing far more trade and having far more Nazi synpathy among their publics and ruling class. Churchill is a famous fan of the Nazis until his hand was forced.
What’s historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship
The Nazis took Brest initially, despite it being past the demarcation line. When the Soviets arrived, the Nazis voluntarily withdrew and both armies saluted one another. They then held a joint victory parade before the Nazis returned westwards, back behind the demarcation line.
The Nazis definitely weren’t “pushed out”, that’s BS. As much as you say that the west had Nazi sympathies, they never actively invaded a third nation together, collaborating militarily, and divided the spoils. But you conveniently forgot to address the military cooperation between the Nazis and the Soviets during their joint invasion of Poland, because it directly undermines your false narrative.
You’re also conveniently ignoring that the Soviets “accidentally” let slip what their secret protocols with Germany entailed to the Lithuanians, in order to pressure them into joining with the Soviets after the invasion of Poland. The Polish distaste for Russia also may have had something to do with the decades of Russian imperialism the Polish suffered from.
Undermining alliance talks is something all the great powers did. The Polish Intermarium was sabotated by the Soviets for example. That’s not unique to the Allies in the slightest.
The Nazis took Brest, and when the Soviets arrived, the Nazis pulled back rather than directly antagonizing the Soviets and risking war before Barbarossa. This isn’t complicated, had the Soviets not arrived, the Nazis would have stayed or pushed onward. As for the Nazi request for support, the Soviets only partially complied, trying to tread the line between collapsing the non-agression pact and giving as little support as possible. I didn’t bother responding to this point because you were already lying elsewhere.
The Soviets informing Lithuania of the details of the non-aggression pact was a good thing. What’s your point, exactly? That the nation that spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, was ideologically opposed to Nazism, when the Nazis were murdering communists, were secretly friends the whole time and that the war was an unexpected betrayal? This kind of nonsense anti-communism is historical revisionism and erasure of context.
It remains true that the country that did the most to try to stop the Nazi threat before World War II, and contributed the most to stopping the Nazis during it, was the Soviet Union, and it isn’t close.
The Soviets arrived in Brest because that’s what they had agreed upon with the Nazis. The Nazis just stuck to their end of the deal. Your attempt to frame this as the Soviets “liberating” Brest from the Nazis is laughably inaccurate. There was no antagonism when the Soviets arrived.
The Nazis would have had to stay in Brest if the Soviets didn’t show up, because both parties also agreed to suppress any Polish resistance against either side. The Nazis suddenly leaving would have given an opening to Polish resistance.
The Soviets basically told Lithuania “we decided to divvy up eastern Europe with the Nazis. You are on our side of the demarcation line, and we already invaded Poland. Know what happens when you resist”. It was a direct threat, not a promise of an alliance.
The UK and France guaranteed Polish independence and declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded. The Soviets could have done the same, but didn’t. Instead, they joined forces with the Nazis. They were just as ineffective at stopping the Nazis as the Allies were, when he wasn’t directly helping them out. Once war was declared that picture shifts, and the Soviets delivered an immense effort to stop the Nazis, most notably their sacrifice in human lives (something that must be respected and remembered). But before the war that was very different, despite attempts to minimize the Soviet collaboration by revisionists.
There was no antagonism from the Nazis because they had agreed to not press farther, or risk breaking the non-aggression pact. Without the non-aggression pact, Poland would have been totally colonized by the Nazis and subject to the Holocaust. It effectively stalled the Nazi advance without the Soviets needing to go to war quite yet.
The Soviets informed Lithuania to warn them of Nazi aggression, not to threaten them. Britain and France declared war but didn’t do jack shit, to the point that this era was remembered as the “Phoney War.” What happened next, was Britain extending diplomacy with the USSR and trying to finally form a cohesive alliance.
Again, because you’re relentlessly dodging this, what’s your point, exactly? That the nation that spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, was ideologically opposed to Nazism, when the Nazis were murdering communists, were secretly friends the whole time and that the war was an unexpected betrayal? This kind of nonsense anti-communism is historical revisionism and erasure of context.
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Allied_Chinese.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poster_russian.jpg){kind=link}
