49
CHANGE(the bombs out)
(thelemmy.club)
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 01 Apr 2026
49 points (63.1% liked)
Memes
55826 readers
709 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 7 years ago
MODERATORS
The Nazis worked hand in hand with liberals, and after the war liberals helped protect them and use them for the US space program and to lead organizations like NATO.
The liberals only opposed fascism once it was clear that the Nazis were going to attack them as well. Fascists like Batista in Cuba were worked with to the very end, never once opposing them. As for the soviets, they never did collaborate with the Nazis.
What happened was the soviets spent an entire decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, while the liberals were gleefully working with the Nazis. The soviets signed a non-aggression pact on the eve of war to buy time.
It's amazing that every comment you post is so embarrassingly wrong.
The USSR spent years trying to build an anti-Nazi alliance. 1933 they proposed collective security at the League of Nations. 1935 they signed mutual defense pacts with France and Czechoslovakia. Spring 1939 they sat in Moscow for months begging Britain and France for a real triple alliance. The West stalled. Refused to guarantee the Baltics. Refused to let the Red Army cross Poland to actually fight Hitler. Poland's elite, more scared of workers than of Nazis, said no too and instead joined Hitler in attacking Czechoslovakia. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened because liberals handed Hitler Eastern Europe rather than work with socialists.
When Soviet troops entered eastern Poland September 17 1939, the Polish state had already collapsed. Government fled to Romania September 15. Warsaw was burning. The army was broken. The lands the USSR moved into? Not Poland proper. Territories Poland had seized and occupied by force in 1919-1921 from Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.
And spare me the nonsense about liberals and fascists. They share a foundation: defense of capitalist property. When capital feels threatened, liberalism drops the mask. Chile 1973. Indonesia 1965. Greece 1967. The Soviet Union abolished the capitalist class. That is a total category difference.
Then there is denazification. The contrast couldn't be clearer. In the Soviet zone, former Nazis went to labor camps. They worked. They earned minimum wage like other inmates. In the West? Operation Paperclip handed over 1,600+ Nazi scientists, officers, and spies. Wernher von Braun, who used slave labor to build V-2 rockets, became head of NASA's Apollo program. Adolf Heusinger, Hitler's Chief of the General Staff, became Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. Johannes Steinhoff, Nazi ace, also chaired NATO's military committee. Heinz Reinefarth, who massacred civilians in Warsaw, became a respected mayor in West Germany.
I genuinely cannot fathom how someone can be this historically, politically, and materially illiterate and still type with such confidence.
Did you actually read what I wrote or just skim for a keyword?
Yes, the USSR ran Operation Osoaviakhim. They relocated German specialists. And then those specialists were forced to worked in research institutes under massive scrutiny and supervision for minimum wage where they would be executed if they refused to work. Not one of them was made head of the Soviet rocket program. Not one was given a seat on the Central Committee. Not one was appointed to command Warsaw Pact forces.
The Soviet system used their technical labor under massive constraint and threat. The Western system restored their class power. Wernher von Braun didn't just "work" for NASA. He was a leader. Adolf Heusinger didn't just "consult" for NATO. He chaired its Military Committee. These weren't technicians in a lab. They were architects of policy, strategy, and rearmament.
You call that "identical." That's not analysis. That's surrendering to bourgeois propaganda. One system subordinated former fascists to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The other subordinated the postwar order to former fascists. If you can't grasp that distinction, no amount of facts will help you. But please, keep typing. It's instructive. I personally couldn't imagine being so arrogant and idiotic as to embarrass myself to the level you have throughout this thread. You really are showing how you have somewhere between 0 and a negative understanding of history and honestly reality and might possibly be illiterate.
No it's the historical record of what actually happened. The fact you don't like it and wish all countries and systems were equally bad when it comes to fascism doesn't change that. The USSR for it's many faults was absolutely antifascist pre, during and post war.
You are exhausting. So arrogant and so utterly wrong. You should be embarrassed I'm surprised the embarrassment hasn't won out and stopped you from spouting nonsense at least for a bit but I suppose you're still in the denial phase.
Operation Paperclip was far more consequential than Operation Osoaviakhim. Not to mention that Operation Osoaviakhim was much more of a reparation than Operation Paperclip was. Contrary to what @Archangel1313@lemmy.ca thinks, the differences between these two programmes are not trivia worth overlooking.
But they weren't identical that's the whole point I'm making please actually read what I said. I know reading might be hard but you are just wasting your time typing nonsense because you seemingly can't grasp what I'm saying
In the case of the Nazis and fascism reality was "cartoonishly onesided". Again as I said the USSR for its many faults was absolutely antifascist whereas the US/Europe were categorically not. Look into operation gladio. Look into the history of Ford and IBM with regards to the Nazis not just pre war but during the war. Look at the difference between operation Paperclip and Osoaviakhim.
If you think an accurate portrayal of reality is propaganda you really should do some introspection on what you believe, where you learned it etc. You have been embarrassingly wrong in basically every comment I've seen.
I hadn't known this about how the Soviets treated Nazis before and after the war. It's good to learn this and I really enjoy seeing your analysis and rebuttals.
Go back to Reddit
If historical record sounds like the soviets were overwhelmingly better than the west, then that's just your evaluation of the actual historical record. That's what happened, it isn't because soviets good and US bad, it's from fundamental differences in how fascism is treated by communists vs. by liberals.
The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. 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:
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 decades 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.
I am being honest here, that's why I can recognize that since fascism and liberalism are both built on capitalism, they are diametrically opposed to socialism and have more in common with each other than they do with socialism.
Thanks for proving you're as illiterate about history as you are about politics. Now there's almost no chance any serious adults accidentally think you have anything intelligent to say.
Historical illiteracy and false equivalence.
Things are so much easier when ignoring the parts you don't like.
Parts such as?