this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
401 points (87.6% liked)
Memes
53548 readers
1212 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I did address those. Plus, based on the voting ratios, it seems that "anyone that can read" is siding more with me than you. Normally I think referencing vote ratios is a stupid frame of argument, but if you're going to make the appeal first I may as well point out that it's in my favor, not yours.
I'm not ignoring historical context, you're trying to invent a narrative where the Soviets, for a very short period, were actually super pro-Nazi and totally fine with them, surrounded on both sides by decades of hostile opposition and offers to send a million troops on the conditions of forming an anti-Nazi alliance. The country that hated the Nazis from the beginning, and killed 85% of the total Nazi deaths in World War II, somehow forgot its history and decided to collaborate with the Nazis willingly.
I guess I'll show you a mirror: there’s no point in continuing this conversation if you keep failing to address these key points that directly undermine your narrative.
Please cite this directly because I'm not reading it in your replies.
Here's the thing: this is exactly what the communist parties outside Russia also struggled with. Stalin made a deal with Hitler. Molotov literally said "Fascism? Fascism is purely a matter of taste".
For the first two weeks of the war, the communist parties felt conflicted but ultimately didn't need to change their stance. They were anti-fascist after all, and the UK and France had now declared war on the Nazis so this received the CPs support. Maurice Thorez even joined the French army (for a couple weeks until he left to go to Moscow).
But then, Stalin invaded Poland, and they met the Nazis as allies in the middle. Stalin publicly came out in support of Hitler's "peace programme". This caused some serious conflicts in the CPs in the west. Suddenly the logic shifted:
So surely, it was better to focus on being anti-imperialist, focused against the UK and France instead of focusing on Germany.
You'll find many socialist and communist newspapers started putting out pro-German propaganda (and some were banned for it). This only changed after 41, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
The Soviets were never "totally fine" with the Nazis. But for a time they were happy to see the Nazis turned towards the west, and they saw the opportunity to get some benefits for themselves too.
It seems you keep shifting and shifting and shifting. The soviets remained the most consistent, largest, and most millitant anti-Nazi group, while the west made it clear that they had quite a large pro-Nazi population. And I addressed them in the comments I linked, not going to rewrite it out for you.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
Fantastic, thank you very much as always, comrade.
Yeah this was my point. It took a bit for various communist groups to pivot back to being primarily anti-reich. Those who suffered directly under the Nazis turned faster, e.g. those in northern France took the anti-reich position before the British communists did (they remained more anti-imperialist aimed at the UK, until the Soviets were invaded).
(Source.)
(Source.)
(Source.)
(Source.)
I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to say here. You seem to be supporting my point that in 39, the communists were primarily anti-imperialist, which by 41 had pivoted back to being primarily anti-reich. They obviously didn't like the reich in that time, that would be ridiculous. But they did in some ways echo some of the pro-German propaganda (eg blaming London for the war).
Your first source also confirms what I'm saying about the confusion caused by the war and the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. The assumption was that the imperialist west would ally with the Nazis and that the Soviets would be fighting the fascists. Yet in a span of 2-3 weeks, the reality was that the Nazis had allied with the Soviets and that the imperialists were fighting the fascists instead. Hence the mentioned confusion and the lack of heterogeneity in the response; various reasons were invented to support the Soviets in this new arrangement (quite interestingly a fair few of those I've seen mentioned here actually, e.g. the "protecting the Poles" line, but at the time it was also argued by some that the USSR had a right to take back those lands from Poland. Though none of them seemed to deny an invasion had taken place altogether like some here are suggesting).
Oh. That is a good point. You really showed me how wrong I was. I wish that I were as smart as you.
I'm not really sure what the snark is for, I'm asking you a genuine question because you seem to be genuinely engaging and doing actual research.
You listed a number of sources but I didn't quite get what exactly you were replying, so that's why I asked for a clarification. It's a genuine attempt at conversation :(