this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
34 points (61.5% liked)
History
1297 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/History @ Mander.xyz!
Notice Board
- 2023-07-01: We are looking for mods. Send a dm to @fossilesque@mander.xyz if interested! This is a work in progress, please don't mind the mess.
Work in progress...
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
Similar Communities
- !openscience@lemmy.ml
- !historymemes@lemmy.ml
- !history@lemmy.world
- !history@lemmygrad.ml
- !fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world
Sister Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !microbiology@mander.xyz
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
Plants & Gardening
Physical Sciences
Humanities and Social Sciences
- !archaeology@mander.xyz
- !cooking@mander.xyz
- !folklore@mander.xyz
- !history@mander.xyz
- !old_maps@mander.xyz
Memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The USSR never colonized anyone. Further, it supported movements in Cuba, Angola, Algeria, China, Vietnam, Korea, Palestine, and more.
As for Poland, rather than let the genocidal Nazis take all of Poland, the Soviets stopped them from taking all of it. We see the difference in treatment when the Nazis exterminated Polish people and the Soviets did not.
The USSR never sided with the Nazis. They hated each other. The liberal democracies of Europe made similar agreements with Hitler before the USSR, and shot down Stalin's suggestions of an anti-fascist alliance. Furthermore, US industrialists were directly inspired by Fascist Germany and Italy to carry out the failed Business Plot against FDR. The USA also paid reparations to German industrialists for their destroyed property after the war was over (Yes, even German industrialists who used Holocaust slave labor, like Krupp).
1933 - UK, France, Italy - The four powers pact
1934 - Poland - Hitler-Pilsudski Pact
1935 - UK - Anglo-German Naval agreement
1936 - Japan - Anti-Comintern pact
1938 - September - UK - German-British Non Aggression Pact (Munich Agreement )
1938 - December - France - German-French Non Aggression Pact
1939 - March - Romania - German Romanian Economical Treaty
1939 - March - Lithuania - Non aggression ultimatum
1939 - May - Italy - Pact of Steel (Friendship and Alliance)
1939 - May - Denmark - Non aggression pact
1939 - June - Estonia - non aggression pact
1939 - July - Latvia - non aggression pact
1939 - August - USSR - Molotov-Ribbentrop Non Aggression pact - the only ones libs care about
Stalin with regards to this said:
"Indeed, it would be ridiculous and stupid to close our eyes to the capitalist encirclement and think that our external enemies, the fascists, for example, will not, if the opportunity arises, make an attempt at an attack upon the USSR. Only blind braggarts or masked enemies who desire to lull the vigilance of our people can think like that."
Even the US state department confirmed Stalin's rationale for a pact with Hitler
"The Soviets signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany after the British and French rejected Soviet offers to establish a military alliance against Germany"
CIA declassifies its dealings with ex nazis
Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact'
How the Allied multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War II
https://lemmy.ml/post/28786830/18074249 @cowbee@lemmy.ml Bro I am starting to think these guys have not familiarized themselves with the literature
Yep, history from a liberal perspective only makes sense if you selectively cut out and any all context and erase common sense.
The Katyn Massacre begs to differ with your overall thesis on Poland. Had protecting the Polish really been the desired outcome, they could have been granted autonomy of their own domestic affairs rather than annexation into the Soviet Union, in what was clearly an imperialist landgrab.
"The katyn massacre begs to differ with your overall thesis" is such tortured awful writing that I hesitate to keep responding in order to walk you through every Timothy Snyder-tier pop history factoid lodged in your brain. It's like talking to myself when I was 14 reading Robert Evans articles on Cracked. Let me know when you get through these, you're welcome~ https://annas-archive.se/md5/9f9f3ebb076a7ed2d91f51d0e5440f20
https://annas-archive.se/md5/dbf40cb981d075d2ecfd00af5dad05d4
Sorry for disturbing you, you must be quite sensitive. I'm sure I'll get around to those.
"Sensitive" to people shitting out sentences less meaningful than Colourless Green Ideas Sleep Furiously in my mentions while handwaving collaboration with Nazis as politically acceptable and common yes. You're pestering me. I've been doing all of the lifting here and educating you. I don't think you will read those. What was the last history book you read/documentary watched etc? What made you feel entitled to my time in the first place?
Meaning was pretty simple, you said something misleading, so I gave a piece of evidence to counter it. Pretty big massacre of Poles.
You are correct, I will probably not read those, I was being sarcastic. You're pretty clearly severely biased, as well as just trying to be combative for combativeness' sake, so I'm not particularly interested. Regarding me feeling entitled, you are here posting in a community that I subscribe to, so I do feel fully entitled to engage with you as a fellow user . Particularly when someone makes a claim, it is pretty common practice on the internet to challenge it, ask for a source, etc.
So why do you feel entitled to ask people for sources that you have no intention of examining? Couldn't be a more clear-cut description of pseudointellectualism and concern trolling, you get all of your information from the same capital centers which supported fascism in Europe and prevented the destruction of it in the aftermath of the war. Read the books, don't take up more of my time for attention like an annoying child.
I wasn't asking you for a source. I was challenging your assertion with a piece of evidence. Those are two distinct activities. That should be fairly common sense.
Frankly, if you don't want to be bothered, you should probably stay off the internet. It's a rough world out there.
edit: Oh, and btw, the AfD is most successful in former East Germany, not West Germany. So who didn't destroy it?
I am presenting you with criticism of the sources which you are referencing because I know more than you lmao, you have no right to reject them out of hand as "biased" because they don't fit your original narrative. I am rejecting your unsubstantiated claims with better material. Quit having conversations with yourself and deflecting because you can't handle being challenged
If you're refuting my evidence, you should be able to type out a brief summary of your argument for why that massacre shouldn't matter or whatever. A brief paragraph summarizing the most important point would be fine. That's fairly traditional instead of just "go read this stuff", which may or may not even fully pertain, knowing passionate ideologues on the internet.
No, go call your mother and stop begging me for attention. Engage with the material and come back. If you devoted a fraction of the energy you do to annoying people online to reading, you could eventually be as literate as the average Chinese teenager.
That's cute, but I think we both know who is acting more like a teenager here.
That would be the person setting arbitrary conversation rules and pouting when being presented with homework. Now get your sore buttocks out of my mentions and read
No, I think it's the whiney one making personal attacks and posting their own favorite propaganda links instead of actually engaging in conversation.
You can stop replying any time you know, if you're oh so upset.
I think the guy who believes politics on Lemmy are "compromised" and needs to huddle under Bluesky moderation may be a little perturbed actually. The evil Russians are corrupting the website! Oh no. Can you stop any time you want? Because it seems possible to juggle you without a fight. I think I can stunlock you for the rest of your life. This is history, you can't opt out of it any time you like. What you fail to understand about historical discussions is there is no last word, people die. Refusing to consider criticisms of your premises and resssuring yourself with tirades accomplishes nothing. You are only throwing off your own understanding of the world. All of the sources of your Wikipedia articles are addressed across these two books.
Funny that you accuse me of tirades when I've been nothing but measured and polite, while you spout stuff like:
I gave you your chance to explain yourself, in your own words. I know that takes some effort, no question, but if you really had confidence in your position, you'd be more than happy to at least briefly summarize. Instead you punted. It's a common tactic, don't think people haven't noticed. Science communities deal with tough questions all the time, you see people try to explain, because they care and love their topic. They don't just go "read two books, now shut up".
Augh the app is shidding itself bc im replying too much augh
In 2025 pseuds don't demand to be read books aloud like you're their mommy, they "give you the chance to explain yourself". You're not the only one who can make reference to a context outside the thread of conversation. To begin with, there is no reason for me to believe you read the first article I posted. If you can even make an attempt to attack one point made in the article, I will have a reason to believe it. You may not be aware of how ridiculous you come off to someone with a background in this.
Really? Because my initial, unedited comment includes a year (1922 if I recall) that I could have only gotten from reading the first article you gave me. So, this:
is just blatantly, provably, false. That said, this specific conversation is actually not about that, it's about something else. Not that I expect you to care, unless it's convenient for you.
Lastly, asking you to address one single point in your own words does not, and should not, require a book. That's very disingenuous.
edit for grammar
Do you want some kind of award for remembering a number? There's no indication that you know how to attack any of its points made, which would show you actually comprehended the piece. Calling a Vox article Russian propaganda is psychotic.
No, telling you to read is not disingenuous, you feel like you are owed something, there is no promise of you getting your shower conversations. it's undesirable for you to have to read a book. Not my problem. Then you won't know what's in it and you can just sit here begging me to read it to you. You've presented stuff referencing material I've already read, without doing what you ask of me. Now I present you with extended refutations of that source material.
Of course, we both know you're not actually capable of anything other than barking what your country's officials told you to say. The books are useless to you for that reason
https://archive.org/details/VideoAlexeiNavalnyComparesMuslimsToCockroaches
Just pointing out one of your lies, that's all. That specific year was mentioned in your article. Since I commented with it, I clearly read your first article. You saying you have no reason to believe I read your article is a blatant lie from you.
I think this is just an excuse for why you don't want to defend your position with anything except book titles. Which is very convenient, by the way, but you're not fooling anyone.
Go back and reread what you're trying to make a pedantic point about - I said you haven't even attempted to refute any of the articles claims. Here you still haven't.
Yes, it is very convenient that some of us hide our secret knowledge in books where oafs like you cannot find them, like putting cookies on top of the refridgerator.
Because we are not arguing about the article. This thread is about the Katyn Massacre, not British funding for Mussolini, which was what your first article was about. I am not the one that needs to reread anything here, I can apparently remember this much better than you.
Probably because I'm not nearly as involved in numerous different attempts to spread my country's propaganda like you are your country's, I only have to worry about this one conversation, instead of many.
That's an interesting way to cope considering that I've taught you a number of basic historical facts today. I live in Vietnam. Your singleminded devotion to spreading the propaganda of the people who appointed 3rd Reich criminals as their officials is disturbing. Are you perhaps being paid to waste my time? Or are you simply deranged?
Your "basic historical facts" are very conveniently dodging the USSR militarily seizing the land of Eastern Poland, killing many and not granting them any autonomy, as some strange way to "protect" Poles.
The USSR was marginally cleaner than the Reich. Pointing out that the West weren't good either does not mean the USSR wasn't heavy on conquest and war crimes.
If I'm wasting so much of your time, you are again, fully free to leave or block me or whatever makes you feel better.
Basic historical facts like that NATO countries have rewritten their own role in Nazism & harboring fascists, but you consider their historians the final word on the matter. I gave you some books to read that delve into the historical claims you make about the USSR, which you are welcome to engage with critically. As displayed by your repeated insistence on turning this conversation into a debate with yourself as a judge, you are not actually capable of digesting the material. I may as well hand a dog a laptop. Until you can download one of the books and digest their material I won't consider you a serious person.
Western countries are fully aware that we did not eradicate fascism, that's covered in our schools. Like I said, libs are not big on extermination, even of fascist people. Or communist people for that matter, though I do worry for our future under the Christian Nationalists. They are not libs. I do wonder, though, how you feel about the AfD being so much stronger in former East Germany than West Germany. Why is modern fascism stronger in the former Soviet Bloc region of that single country?
There's nothing for me to judge. Copy/pasting a couple book titles without giving an actual argument is a meaningless appeal to authority. Your opinion of me personally is ultimately irrelevant. It's the position that matters.
Yap yap yap yap, you're so intrigued by your own assumptions that you truly believe they are convincing. The problem is that you've absorbed American policy debate tactics where "unaddressed claims" are scored as wins. You're flat out antiintellectual. It's sad to see someone string together such a dull imitation of inductive reasoning. My guess is others attempted to use it to get through to you, and you misunderstood what they were doing. You just change the focus of the conversation bacl to your favorite propaganda after dismissing whatever you have been presented with as biased or too long to read. I doubt you have even convinced yourself of what you're saying. After all, Furr and Losurdo are this frightening unknown to you that has you making hundreds of excuses.
Have you ever engaged with a single critic of the WWII & Cold War history you've been taught in your life? Even once?
No, I just asked you for a brief summary in your own words. This is standard practice in conversation. You're the one pretending like that's too hard. This is just pretending, though, and much like your constant attempts to do personal attacks, it betrays your weakness.
Right, you want an excuse to continue writing your bullshit without reading, that's what I'm cutting you off from. The most entertaining aspect of this to me is you cannot even reference actual sources, just vague narratives you heard of and a Wikipedia page. Let me give you some advice: if you run into another person who actually reads, counter with your own recommendations. Even better, google a review of their book and bludgeon them with that. It seems you are so thrown off by being asked to read that you have no other move than to camp out in my replies asking for a summary. Has this never happened to you before?
Do you just not know what to do when asked to read before running your mouth? Your persistent reply guy behavior speaks for itself
Okay, that's one of the silliest ideas I've ever heard. We're supposed to internalize and integrate information, not just parrot whatever our authorities feed us. This is why I ask for your words, not the words of your teachers.
That is a horrible idea that will dull your independent thinking in the long run. Perhaps this has happened to you already. We are supposed to always consider thoughts separately from our elders, our countries and our teachers. This is very important. Without this we cannot be independent from our own traditions, our own narratives, our habits, etc. It's not without dangers, but it's a very important skill. We usually press it very heavily once you reach the university level. It's not for the young, obviously, but very important for adults. It's key to being able to be flexible, innovate and solve new problems.
It's like you don't believe in personally discussing information, which I still think is a flimsy excuse to cover for your weakness. You're not willing to simply discuss because you simply can't. You haven't internalized the information.
Cool email begging for what we used to call "spoon feeding". I'm taking you really seriously and about to start following your instructions, but I have one condition: you tell me the last book you read. Just the title is fine
Whatever you used to call it, we usually just call it discussion. Funny thing is, you've written pages and pages worth yourself in this thread, you could have easily saved yourself a ton of time with one brief paragraph yesterday.
Anyway, I just don't believe you, I think you're still just trolling. So, no, I'm uninterested in your conditions about me as a person or my habits. Either address the topic or do not.
Why don't you ask an AI chatbot to summarize the books for you? It would clearly be more your speed.
I don't use LLMs. Besides, I'm here because I enjoy discussing history with other people in history communities. You apparently are here for an entirely different reason, which I think is obvious to everyone.
Yeah you enjoy "discussing history" in the same way someone's dad who got into Dan Carlin does. You've got nothing but bluster when challenged to think for yourself, instead of playing liberal trivia contest, because you don't read. We both know you don't read. History is in books, did you know that? There's no "everyone" here lil bro
You really have no evidence for your insults, so they come across as very shallow. It's pretty juvenile. All you really know is I've told you I won't read your source, which I do understand upsets you.
Regardless of your holier-than-thou, elitist attitude, it doesn't matter. Either people discuss or they don't. You could discuss if you wished, but hiding behind this obvious cover of "you're not good enough to bother with", you won't discuss history, while in a history community. This makes it very obvious you don't really love history, you just want to use it as a tool for your own ends. It's a political tool for you. This is extremely common, anyone who spends any time with it has encountered the phenomenon hundreds of times in both the present and a historical context.
There's nothing beneficial about discussing history with somebody who is incapable of conducting a historical investigation. I think that most people should be able to answer a question such as the last book they read, their favorite color, what year it is, who's president, where they are, and why it smells like toast. Do you catch my drift
Of course I could answer if I wanted, I simply choose not to. They're pointless distractions. I'm more interested in staying on topic, while you seem hell-bent on making this have nothing to do with history and only about me personally and how I'm not good enough for you.
I wonder why...?
Anyways, the purpose is in the love for history. Most of us are here for enjoyment, only you are here to sell something.
No you couldn't.
The only way that would be possible is if I had never read a single book in my entire life. While a common hyperbolic claim, we both know that's a little unrealistic, don't you think? Would be very difficult to make it through schooling without doing at least some reading, after all.
This is a very silly argument to hang your hat on. Might want to think it through a little more.
Dehumanizing, typical nazi strategy
Completely random pedophilia accusations, typical elon musk (nazi) strategy
Your combative stance highlights that you are unable to stray from your ideological perspective to admit any fault on the part of the USSR.
The reason that people "only care" about the Molotov Ribbentrop pact is because the USSR colluded with Germany to partition Poland. It was not just a defensive pact.
You have made (or perhaps, copy pasted) a selective list showing Western collusion/cooperation with Nazi Germany while minimizing USSR collusion with the same. This is whataboutism.
I am a much better critic of the USSR than you, because I don't slavishly adhere to the narrative of the US. You're dealing entirely in ideology and I'm actually engaging with the premises of the historical narrative, something you're unable to do. You are listing off random USSR Bad factoids instead of acknowledging there are criticisms of them. You simply decided not to look at them because it's too hard for you. It's just your aim to control the conversation and downplay or ignore the information you're presented with.