394
O no! Not the nazisss
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
394 points (87.2% liked)
Memes
54729 readers
2548 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
So your complaint is that the USSR didn't take even more of the brunt of the Nazis forces.
My complaint is making a deals and pacts with Nazis. Again, that includes everyone, not just USSR. If everyone had put up stronger opposition from the start then all could've been stopped way earlier.
The only one trying to do that legitimately was the USSR, Britain and France sabotaged talks of anti-Nazi alliance every single time. The west wanted the Nazis and Soviets to kill each other, and then finish off the weaker one if possible.
Western Allies were fighting way before USSR. So was Poland.
The western allies were doing tons of trade with the Nazis and sabotaged talks of alliance with the Soviets up until the war, hoping each would kill the other. This isn't controversial.
It isn't, neither is that they were the first ones (after Poland) to actually fight the Nazis. So can't knock them on that account
Sure, so again, it seems like you would've had the Soviet Union let all of Poland be subject to the Holocaust instead of half of it.
I would've rather like to have seen Soviet Union doing their all to prevent the attack on Poland by Germany instead of joining the attacker in carving up Poland (and Eastern Europe) and doing their own massacres
They did. The Eastern Pact was killed by the British, French, and Polish. Poland hated Russia, and had just been at war with the USSR 2 decades ago, where they took areas in Ukraine and Lithuania. When the Soviet Union entered Poland after the Polish state fell to the Nazis, they met resistance and obviously met that resistance with force, but the way the Soviets treated the Polish and the way the Nazis treated the Polish were entirely uncomparable, the Nazis were slaughtering men, women, and children in unmarked mass graves. Goebbels even tried to blame one such massacre on the Red Army, Katyn, despite the spent ammunition clearly being marked as produced by Nazi Germany in 1941.
You don't have to have formal pact or alliance in place to pledge to declare war in case of another country is invaded. You don't have to have an agreement in place to share intelligence to them, such as the secret protocols or about the negotiations, etc etc. They could've done more.
Oof. Soviet Union already admitted to Katyn massacre. Time to let this conspiracy theory go.
So your point is that the Soviet Union should have fought the Nazis there and then, without formalizing alliance with the west who made it clear that they wished the Nazis and Soviets would kill each other? You would have had the Soviets commit suicide for Poland, rather than trying to close their industrial gap with the Nazis as much as possible and align with the west? This is incredibly silly.
As for Katyn, it's more intentional mistranslation, there was admittance of prisoner transport. None of this explains why the execution method was the exact same as the Nazis, in Nazi territory, with Nazi bullets manufactured during 1941.
I'm saying they could've threatened to. USSR, France, UK all declaring war at the same time because of the invasion would've been a better deterrent than just France and UK, especially since it would be war on both sides.
http://archive.government.ru/eng/docs/10122/print/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-04-14-mn-972-story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/26/russian-parliament-guilt-katyn-massacre
It's been admitted to many times. It's no error.
This is incredibly silly. The Soviet Union had no strong alliance with western countries, even after Britain and France declared war they did jack shit other than a naval blockade. After the Soviets went into Poland, Britain finally extended diplomatic talks of an alliance. The Soviet Union was rapidly industrializing, but was behind Nazi Germany and needed firm acknowledgement of a real alliance.
As for Katyn, the bullets were Nazi-produced in 1941, the grave was "found" by Nazis, the rope used was German produced, the execution method was the same as the Nazis, and Goebbels was the one who started the story. The anti-communist government in Russia "admitted" to doing it, but material evidence directly points to the Nazis doing so.
I mean USSR could've backed away from actually declaring the war or waited to see what the West does. That is if Germany would've risked attacking Poland then. We don't know because that's not what USSR ended up doing.
This is all part of a conspiracy theory not taken seriously by the actual field of researchers or the governments of the relevant countries. I don't think it will be very fruitful to continue on into conspiracy theory zone here.
So you think the Soviets should've let the Nazis take Poland, got it. Guess you think the Holocaust wasn't that bad after all? I would hope not, but the direct consequence of the Soviets waiting any longer than they did (17 days, Britain and France declared war after 2 but did jack shit) would be more Holocaust.
As for Katyn, no, this isn't conspiracy theory. The basic facts of the execution method being the same, Goebbels reporting on it, and the materials being Nazi-made all point to Nazi involvement. Anti-communist organizations and governments agreeing with Goebbels despite the evidence doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory:
The roots of tying the Soviets to Katyn lie in trying to push Holocaust trivialization by making the Soviets out to be as "bad as the Nazis," thereby uplifting the Nazis and demonizing the Soviets.
I've been arguing for means to prevent invasion (from either side) from the beginning.
I mean according to the field of researchers, the relevant governments (even the one responsible for it), it very much is. USSR admitted to it, the legal successor state admitted to it, lot of the damning documents have been declassified... It's dead, Jim.
Tbh it would be a conspiracy theory in either case since you think there's a conspiracy to hide the truth.
You list no means that the Soviets didn't already try. You're effectively wishing for magic.
Back to Katyn, you have no explanation for why the bullets were German and produced in 1941, why the rope was German, the method Nazi, and the originator of the story Goebbels. There's mountains of evidence against the documents listed as "proof" of Soviet guilt:
Skip to the "forgeries" section.
Gotcha, the Soviets should have risked entering a war they weren't certain they could win and weren't certain the west wouldn't flip on them. In other words, you wish they had committed suicide for Poland.
As for Katyn, it's the same source that you read earlier, it's Grover Furr's blog. Grover Furr often makes poor arguments, but the historical evidence he presents is valid. You can't explain the factual discrepancies in the documents, the eyewitness accounts stating that the Nazis did it, nor the German ammunition from 1941, nor the German produced rope, nor the Nazi execution methods, nor why you're agreeing with Goebbels, who first created the story and whose account the anti-communist governments agree with. In absence of a response, you just say "No" and "Hah."
Harry Truman later, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
We don't know that, nor if the attack on Poland would've gone ahead with the threat from both sides. That's why it would've been a gamble. Then again, so was making a deal with them, Germany might have continued on the attack once both sides met in Poland.
Gotcha, so your point is that you denounce the Soviets for not taking an almost assured loss, and you do tkae Goebbels at his word even when evidence points to the contrary.
I mean I'm denouncing everyone else too who didn't do more to stop the Nazis.
The Soviets did the most before, during, and after World War II, and it isn't close.
I'm not sure how you'd measure it but they sure sacrificed a lot.
20 million Soviet lives, countless buildings and factories, massive amounts of resources and material. It was by far the most.
And yet you wish they had sacrificed more
The USSR tried extremely hard to form a unified opposition to the Nazis, and the Western powers responded by signing pacts with the Nazis. As a result, the USSR was left with the choice to also sign a pact to buy time and keep the Nazis out of some of Eastern Europe for a time, or to let them have Eastern Europe and then have to fight a war from a worse position with less preparation.
They literally did choose the option that allowed them to put up the strongest opposition possible. If they had done what you wanted, the Nazis would have won the Eastern front.
We don't know when Nazis would've invaded USSR. They still had Western Allies to deal with. The pact gave breathing room to USSR but it also pointed them towards West. So same deal as what the West wanted to do.
But they would have invaded, probably sooner, so just letting them have all of Eastern Europe in advance would have resulted in the Nazis winning the Eastern front.
Which was true when they invaded them historically too, so I'm not sure what your point was.
The USSR already did the overwhelming amount of the work in defeating the Nazis, it's pretty file to say they should have let themselves get annihilated so the West could do even less.
I'm not sure why people think it's either or when I've been very clearly saying that neither should've been making the deals. West made deals that damn them, but stopped at Poland. Soviet Union was put in a shitty position but also they agreed to carve up Poland alongside Nazi Germany. I'd say that's all around pretty objectionable.
Because what you think they "should" have done is completely fucking irrelevant to the objective stone fact that the western allies did make those deals. That was the material reality the USSR had to content with, not your fantasy world that you keep bringing up despite the fact that no-one asked, presumably just to waste time. Shut the fuck up about what you think the western allies "should" have done: we are talking about the actual world.
So basically your argument is that 100 million lives aren't valuable enough to be pragmatic about
I mean they did make those deals, Soviet Union made the deals, I think it was all shit.
Pragmatism from all sides when dealing with Nazis is what caused the situation to get that far tbqh
How many times do I have to tell you that nobody asked, and nobody cares, before you stop repeating this? Shut the fuck up about what you think the western allies “should” have done: we are talking about the actual world.
Nonsense
It's just sorta the topic. We don't have to keep the discussion going if it is upsetting to you.
No, literally isn't the topic, you just keep bringing it up because you've run out of arguments about the actual topic
I think overall this has run its course tbh.
Given that you've been reduced to knowingly lying and deliberately pretending you can't be coherent, yes, I think it has.
It's definitely further entrenched my experience that every time I've had this discussion with someone, they always end up being a proudly dishonest crypto-Nazi
Well alrighty
Hitler literally wrote a book on how much he hated communists, the bolsheviks and wanted to kill them before he even became chancellor. They were rallying against "judeo-bolshevism" from the very start. It was always very clear that the Nazis saw the main enemy in the east.
I'm not sure what you feel this is in reply to. Their mutual hatred was well known
I was trying to say that it was evidently "as soon as possible".
I mean clearly not. They could've continued on from Poland, but went to West first and then to South. Without Molotov-Ribbentrop, not sure if that would've been different other than Hitler being (even) less confident about the non-aggression between them. But it's what ifs.