43
What's with worldnews banning me for saying the USSR didn't singlehandedly defeat the Nazis? (thelemmy.club)
submitted 13 hours ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
197 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I replied to someone saying that the USSR defeated the Nazis saying that it was a group effort. Got into an argument and called a Nazi repeatedly because "I was mad that the USSR defeated the Nazis and hated them for it" which is ridiculous. This isn't the first time that's happened on Lemmy. What's up with that?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

Britain didn't invade a country and split it with the Nazis lmao. They were hardly good guys (just ask the Bengalis), but they didn't form an offensive alliance with literally Hitler.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

    It's a lie that USSR-Germany made any agreement to split Poland. USSR liberated it before Germany could take control of the east.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    No, the USSR did agree to take Eastern Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop, but they did wait until after the Nazis took the western part before starting their invasion. A combination of waiting to see if Poland could fight off the Nazis, meaning that they didn't have to worry about further Nazi expansion, and after that moving the border west to provide more territory needing to be taken in an eventual war with Germany.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 hours ago

    Secret protocol agreement may have existed, or the forgery backed up by 1990s Russia cozying up to west and joining Stalin derangement syndrome unanimity.

    Still, the USSR did not encourage/applaud a nazi controlled Warsaw, and weather Germany could take entire country or not, would have been easier to buy tolerance for nazi controlled Warsaw. Requiring a defensive buffer proved prescient. "If you want a pact, accept us taking Warsaw"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 4 hours ago

    While it is not justifying it, but is that really a major distinction. The purpose of several previous non-aggression pacts was to sign off on Nazi territorial annexation (again, selectively remembered with appeasement) of saying "it is okay to take the Sudetenland" and "We wont use the Anschluss as a Causus Belli". The reason the Soviets took the eastern part of Poland was to push the border west and that they felt that they could justify this by the fact that it was part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Russia during the revolution and that it was lost to get peace in WW1. That does not justify it, just that any talk about the Soviets, rather than France and Britain, being more compromised and accommodating to the Nazis or that the Soviets were more pro-Nazi than the West is demonstrably wrong and rewritting history for cold war reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent