I mean it doesn’t change the fact that Soviet Union did make a deal with the Nazis and split Europe between them. Nobody is doubting that there was a reason for doing it.
I think you misunderstood. It doesn’t change the fact that such a pact happened and that they did divide Europe between them in it. It’s opinion on how justified such a thing where those arguments matter.
You get that Russia flight with Germany until they got betrayed right? Right?
never happened.
That was the preceding discussion. Someone seemed to be denying it happening at all. Someone came in with a justification for the action, I was just saying that it doesn’t change the fact of it happening, just the justification over it. For further clarification, I’m against the denialism. I’m not saying it wasn’t a pragmatic decision, even if morally dubious.
I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt since their tone seemed to be changing a bit during the discussion, but it turned out it was just the old “that didn’t happen and even if it did” thing.
Yawn, this again.
As I thought, pulled from your ass and the same cheap tricks they try to claim with this pact.
A non-aggression treaty is not “split Europe between them”
You might want to read the whole first sentence of the article lol
was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, with a secret protocol establishing Soviet and German spheres of influence across Eastern Europe.
LOL Maybe you should learn that Wikipedia is not a source and proven to be extremely biased and manipulated.
You don’t even know that.
And even that Wiki page doesn’t cite sources, something you need if you don’t want to be seen as just making shit up, which you clearly are.
You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.
Wikipedia just has approachable articles, so I linked to that since you seemingly hadn’t heard of the pact. It cites sources like so [1] for further reading. And the existence of such pact has been admitted to in Germany, Soviet Union and later in Russia. Its existence isn’t exactly controversial. It’s rather how justified it was that’s argued about.
You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.
Here’s the original texts [1], [2]. If you want an English translation, plenty of them online. Heres’ one (pdf). The secret protocols are at the end.
I’ve been to school and it’s invariably mentioned to make the BS claims you make.
And I probably know better than you how Wikipedia works.
NONE of the references show what they claim.
The original texts talk about ‘spheres of influence’ in the tiny Baltics andthe rest is only about Poland.
It even says:
" The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an
independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely
determined in the course of further political developments."
That hardly sounds like ‘dividing Europe between them’.
I could call that a deliberate misinterpretation.
If you want countries making deals with the nazis that literally say they can annex them even look to the Brits and France.
“Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and and defenses to Nazi Germany” is more like it.
Funny how they never mention that or the dozen of other pacts with nazis, all of them before the Soviets.
Yeah so they chose to sleep with the enemy, two faced imperialists, you’re not making the point you think you are.
Genuinely, this is supposed to be a socialist/communist instance but y’all can’t stop dick riding stalinists like they’re goddamn perfect. Even if you support them you sure as shit shouldn’t be blind about everything because of it.
France and Britain slept with the enemy. Russia saw the writing on the wall and tried to prevent it.
Russia was the main party fighting ww2. France instantly capitulated to the Nazis.
I get that you are a liberal but accurately retelling ww2 is not riding Stalin. Stalin made plenty stupid moves but mostly after the war. The only reason the West fought the Nazis is because they finally came for them.
Hiter hated communists. The reason France Belgium and the Netherlands capitulated was because the majority of their population was not the Nazi target. The USSR however was.
At least when you are wrong try to not load your comments with insults. I guess you are trying to find a reason to get banned while libposting so you can make a whine post about it on lib communities and pretend you got banned for libposting instead being a toxic turd.
I don’t think they said or even implied that you are a dipshit.
Also, saying they had more dead bcs of their “terrible industry” is a weird way to shame a very underdeveloped nation (and if Russia capitulated Germany would have solidified the power over Europe). And akin to implying other countries could have contribute only slightly more bodies & with their “better industries” end WWII sooner.
I’m not a liberal or a dipshit, brush up on your reading comprehension though that might honestly explain some of what goes on here.
Neat edit I can do that too.
I didn’t diminish their part in the war, I’m just not willing to overinflate it. Similarly I didn’t say they contributed less because they just threw bodies at a wall, you’re the only one implying that and it’s an absurd thing to do and I’ll remind you Russia did capitulate dumb dumb, they just changed their mind when it was clear they weren’t going to get what they wanted or if the deal.
You get that Russia offered to fight against the Nazis with Britain and France but Britain and France refused right?
I mean it doesn’t change the fact that Soviet Union did make a deal with the Nazis and split Europe between them. Nobody is doubting that there was a reason for doing it.
Stalin offered the western powers a million men to field against nazi germany, and they refused.
Again, nobody is doubting that there was a reason for doing it.
Removed by mod
I think you misunderstood. It doesn’t change the fact that such a pact happened and that they did divide Europe between them in it. It’s opinion on how justified such a thing where those arguments matter.
Removed by mod
That was the preceding discussion. Someone seemed to be denying it happening at all. Someone came in with a justification for the action, I was just saying that it doesn’t change the fact of it happening, just the justification over it. For further clarification, I’m against the denialism. I’m not saying it wasn’t a pragmatic decision, even if morally dubious.
Not seemingly, they’re saying it directly.
I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt since their tone seemed to be changing a bit during the discussion, but it turned out it was just the old “that didn’t happen and even if it did” thing.
Yeah they’re a propaganda bot or an absolutely absurd human being.
If that’s a ‘fact’ it should be easy to prove right?
Or is it more likely you pulled it from your ass?
Not sure if you’re joking but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
Yawn, this again.
As I thought, pulled from your ass and the same cheap tricks they try to claim with this pact.
A non-aggression treaty is not “split Europe between them”
Wait I’ll return the favor:
Here is the deal between the nazis and their friends from England to split Europe between them.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030005003
You might want to read the whole first sentence of the article lol
LOL Maybe you should learn that Wikipedia is not a source and proven to be extremely biased and manipulated.
You don’t even know that.
And even that Wiki page doesn’t cite sources, something you need if you don’t want to be seen as just making shit up, which you clearly are.
You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.
Wikipedia just has approachable articles, so I linked to that since you seemingly hadn’t heard of the pact. It cites sources like so [1] for further reading. And the existence of such pact has been admitted to in Germany, Soviet Union and later in Russia. Its existence isn’t exactly controversial. It’s rather how justified it was that’s argued about.
Here’s the original texts [1], [2]. If you want an English translation, plenty of them online. Heres’ one (pdf). The secret protocols are at the end.
I’ve been to school and it’s invariably mentioned to make the BS claims you make.
And I probably know better than you how Wikipedia works.
NONE of the references show what they claim.
The original texts talk about ‘spheres of influence’ in the tiny Baltics andthe rest is only about Poland.
It even says:
" The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments."
That hardly sounds like ‘dividing Europe between them’.
I could call that a deliberate misinterpretation.
If you want countries making deals with the nazis that literally say they can annex them even look to the Brits and France. “Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and and defenses to Nazi Germany” is more like it.
Funny how they never mention that or the dozen of other pacts with nazis, all of them before the Soviets.
Yeah so they chose to sleep with the enemy, two faced imperialists, you’re not making the point you think you are.
Genuinely, this is supposed to be a socialist/communist instance but y’all can’t stop dick riding stalinists like they’re goddamn perfect. Even if you support them you sure as shit shouldn’t be blind about everything because of it.
France and Britain slept with the enemy. Russia saw the writing on the wall and tried to prevent it.
Russia was the main party fighting ww2. France instantly capitulated to the Nazis.
I get that you are a liberal but accurately retelling ww2 is not riding Stalin. Stalin made plenty stupid moves but mostly after the war. The only reason the West fought the Nazis is because they finally came for them.
Removed by mod
France fought back a little and then hit ff15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_of_22_June_1940
Hiter hated communists. The reason France Belgium and the Netherlands capitulated was because the majority of their population was not the Nazi target. The USSR however was.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
At least when you are wrong try to not load your comments with insults. I guess you are trying to find a reason to get banned while libposting so you can make a whine post about it on lib communities and pretend you got banned for libposting instead being a toxic turd.
Removed by mod
Must be sad when all you can do is ragepost because you have no arguments.
Ya huh, you delete everything and say I have no argument because you can’t argue in earnest against facts.
Maybe if you didn’t spew insults, your arguments & facts wouldn’t get removed.
I don’t think they said or even implied that you are a dipshit.
Also, saying they had more dead bcs of their “terrible industry” is a weird way to shame a very underdeveloped nation (and if Russia capitulated Germany would have solidified the power over Europe). And akin to implying other countries could have contribute only slightly more bodies & with their “better industries” end WWII sooner.
I’m not a liberal or a dipshit, brush up on your reading comprehension though that might honestly explain some of what goes on here.
Neat edit I can do that too.
I didn’t diminish their part in the war, I’m just not willing to overinflate it. Similarly I didn’t say they contributed less because they just threw bodies at a wall, you’re the only one implying that and it’s an absurd thing to do and I’ll remind you Russia did capitulate dumb dumb, they just changed their mind when it was clear they weren’t going to get what they wanted or if the deal.
I agree that it’s always the “dipshits” and the “dumb dumbs” that make it weird.
Weird-weird, not sexy weird.
When you want to say something that makes sense I invite you to try again.