83
Why do you think so many people on the Marxist left defend Stalinism? (quokk.au)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
213 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I'd like to think it's simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 7 months ago (12 children)

If you mean the non-aggression pact they had, then it would also be the USSR, yes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago* (10 children)

    No I mean when the USSR offered to fight the Nazis with Poland, France and the UK

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_alliance_negotiations

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    So... still USSR, represented by Molotov eventually deciding to side with Nazis. Really unsure how it's Poland's fault, as you implied previously

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    That is such a ridiculous take even British historians disagree with you.

    Are you interested in understanding history and trying to learn from it?

    There were many talks, the British and French governments refused to commit, prefering to let the Nazis kill Slavs. They told the Polish government that despite Hitler loudly saying how he was going to kill Slavs and take their land this would not happen. The USSR said they would fight, first in Czechoslovakia when it was annexed, second when the Nazis were building up forces on Poland's boarders. Both times they needed permission to send armies through (and later in obvs) Poland.

    The polish government, being capitalist shitbags, were terrified of a revolution and denied this. Preferring to take their chances with Hitler and the dubious guarantees of the British. This worked out famously well for them.

    The ussr, having been a nation of serfs 20 years ago, and being unable to fight alone abandoned the talks that were being deliberately sabotaged for a NAP to buy time. Literally the same strategy as the UK yet somehow this is an example of the USSR being evil? Despite this being their backup backup plan.

    Framing it as the evil USSR carving up Poland with Hitler is not just subtly wrong, it's almost the opposite of reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    Oh, my bad, I didn't recognise Cowbee's alt

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    It is okay to be categorically wrong about a historical time period. It wasn't Molotov in that phase. Molotov replaced Litvinov, who was the foreign minister of the USSR until 1939. Litvinov was the proponent of allying with the West against Germany. (For what it is worth Litvinov likely would've signed the Pact with Germany anyway.) But Stalin supported him, and even after being dismissed wasn't even disgraced.

    The important subsequent development here is that Britain and France then actively tried to support Finland against the USSR during the Winter War while still technically at war with Germany, who was also supporting Finland. The Phoney War was a real thing that played out, after all.

    Unless these are too minor of details.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    I guess that completely justifies occupying half of Poland and murdering a bunch of locals, my bad /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    It doesn't, and it shouldn't be taken as such. It's just historicity.

    Pretty much between 1914 and 1946/53 you have an impenetrable web of colonial empires colliding and crashing apart. There is very little purity to be found, so accuracy is about all you can rely on. Not knowing about Litvinov, (or Pilsudski, or the Phoney War, or whatever) is fine and normal.

    Like, there are often counter/fingerpointing on this subject about Churchill being a pile of shit (and sure, super racist) but in this specific context we're still in the Chamberlain era. Pointing that out is neither support for Chamberlain nor a judgement on Churchill.

    And there's plenty about Stalin-era USSR to complain about. Lysenkoism or Beria, for instance. It's such a deeply complex subject that accuracy tends to be the most damning evidence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    This is the shit that gets to me. Like half this thread is people talking about silly people wanting to divide history into goodies and baddies while doing exactly that.

    History just is, the good and bad we must analyse with clear eyes if we are to learn from both the triumphs and failures so we can build a free world.

    The USSR did wonderful things, terrible things, and banal things. On the whole it vastly improved the lives of people in it, and even outside of it the threat of revolution was used to advance worker's rights massively. Acknowledging this is not excusing or justifying the failures, explaining why the failures occured is not excusing them. To learn we must understand the whys and the hows so we can replicate triumphs and avoid tragedy.

    The whole point it to do better. I don't understand why people don't see that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent