you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an alliance in which (like the later German/Italian/Japanese alliance) split up territory between the powers, allowing the USSR to annex parts of Finland, Poland, and Romania plus all of the Baltic Countries.

If you've read anything on Soviet history you know they were planning to invade Europe from the moment they won power. It was just a matter of building up their power and armies to do it. When the US, British Empire, and world Jewry started funneling massive loads of money after 1935 to the Soviets that Faustian bargain was struck. Neither side intended to keep to it. Again, reference the memoirs of those involved. Stalin thought he'd be the one who got to break it, and was caught off guard by Operation Barbarossa; which at the moment it was launched was more of a desperation move than a strategic one.

You can't look at any of the events of World War 2 without considering the self-stated motivations of the actors involved, and what their military intelligence knew at the time various decisions were made.

The Nazis' incompetent and foolhardy invasion of the USSR allowed it to take over all of Eastern Europe after the war. This allowed Marxism-Leninism to spread to various parts of the world, including North Korea, which started the Korean War.

Without the 3rd Reich the Soviets with their German Allies would have successfully taken over all or nearly all of Europe - and we'd have had a very different world. The Wiemar republic was weak, crippled as it was by the Treaty of Versailles and an anti-German press - without the nascent NSDAP fighting off Antifa there, the communists would have won; very nearly having done so in the original 1918 revolution. The stated goal from the very beginning with the Bolsheviks was and still is the utopia of "world communism". It's not like any of them make efforts to hide this.

Hitler's thirst for power and his incompetence was arguably responsible for most of those supposed 100 million deaths.

So Hitler forced Lenin and Trotsky to starve tens of millions of Christians to death on purpose? He forced Mao's Great Leap Forward? C'mon man.

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

If you've read anything on Soviet history you know they were planning to invade Europe from the moment they won power.

Yeah, in 1917. Military defeats* since then made them abandon that goal. It wasn't until the failure of Barbarossa that the Soviets got another chance to take over Eastern Europe.

And I know this is a clash of definitions, but since most Soviet citizens lived west of the Ural Mountains, I'd classify the USSR as European. You can't really invade Europe when you ARE in Europe.

When the US, British Empire, and world Jewry started funneling massive loads of money after 1935 to the Soviets that Faustian bargain was struck.

Oh you mean like this?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Expansion_of_raw_materials_and_military_trading

And don't forget the 200 million mark loan Germany gave the USSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939)

Face it, until being stabbed in the back, Hitler and Stalin were buddies. As Ribbentrop himself said, Hitler called Stalin "a man he could do business with".

Despite all the differences in the ideologies of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies.

~Karl Schnurre, German negotiator

The Wiemar republic was weak - without the nascent NSDAP fighting off Antifa there, the communists would have won

Nice try, but the Nazi Party was formed in 1920. The revolution ended in 1919.

So Hitler forced Lenin and Trotsky to starve tens of millions of Christians to death on purpose?

No, nice strawman, though.

He forced Mao's Leap Forward?

His incompetence created the conditions for Mao. No Hitler, no Barbarossa. No Barbarossa, no Soviet increase in power. No Soviet increase in power, no resources to support Mao. No support for Mao, no Great Leap Forward.

*Including defeats inflicted on the Soviets by the "untermench" Poles, who were later betrayed and slaughtered by the Nazis and their collaborators.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You can't really invade Europe when you ARE in Europe.

This is grasping at straws and you know it.

Despite all the differences in the ideologies of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies.

Unrestrained capitalism is and has ever been ass. This is a separate argument, but on that front I agree with the Fascists, National Socialists, and even Communists. Just about any system is better than unrestrained capitalism - where money buys political power and manufactures consent.

Face it, until being stabbed in the back, Hitler and Stalin were buddies. As Ribbentrop himself said, Hitler called Stalin "a man he could do business with".

At this point you're presenting a more liberal argument than Wikipedia, which is quite an accomplishment. Read the background section of the article you linked me about the 1939 agreement.

Nice try, but the Nazi Party was formed in 1920. The revolution ended in 1919.

No, most active clashes with the Military stopped. The revolution was very much alive, and in fact still is. The org name hasn't even changed.

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

A Rally of said party: https://files.catbox.moe/q9sxnd.jpg

Many of these people infiltrated the Sturmabteilung and tried to subvert the party from within, resulting in the night of long knives.

His incompetence created the conditions for Mao. No Hitler, no Barbarossa. No Barbarossa, no Soviet increase in power. No Soviet increase in power, no resources to support Mao. No support for Mao, no Great Leap Forward.

This is also a big stretch. The soviets were bankrolling insurrections all over Europe, and had Germany flipped red would have ended up more powerful than they did in the current real world scenario. This is all theory-craft though, admittedly.

*Including defeats inflicted on the Soviets by the "untermench" Poles, who were later betrayed and slaughtered by the Nazis and their collaborators.

On this we can agree, the Poles got the short end of the stick from everyone. What didn't kill them definitely made them stronger - they are one of the only bastions in Europe against the degeneracy that has been normalized throughout the West.

/Unrelated side note - I haven't had this much fun arguing on the internet since Usenet. I suppose I'm allowed to upvote you even if I disagree. I appreciate effort posts. As I watch American and Western European cities burn it is being done by people tagging the symbols and flying the flags of Roter Frontkämpferbund and the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands. But hey, at least we don't speak German, right?

[–]kissfan7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is grasping at straws and you know it.

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm just being pedantic.

Unrestrained capitalism is and has ever been ass. This is a separate argument[...]

Focus, kid. We're talking about how Hitler and Stalin were allies, not questioning capitalism (which Hitler was a full supporter of after the Night of the Long Knives).

Read the background section of the article you linked me about the 1939 agreement.

Nothing in there claims Hitler and Stalin weren't allies, nor disproves the fact that Germany gave the USSR loans, oil, and other goods.

The revolution was very much alive, and in fact still is.

"This is grasping at straws and you know it."

The soviets were bankrolling insurrections all over Europe [...]

Not during 1939, when the Pact was made and economic cooperation between the USSR and Nazi Germany began.

On this we can agree, the Poles got the short end of the stick from everyone.

"[T]he short end of the stick" is hell of a way to describe a genocide that killed 5.5 million Poles.

What didn't kill them definitely made them stronger

You're honestly arguing that the Poland that was occupied by the Soviets in 1945 was "stronger" than the Poland that beat the USSR in 1921?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm just being pedantic.

Fair enough.

Focus, kid. We're talking about how Hitler and Stalin were allies, not questioning capitalism (which Hitler was a full supporter of after the Night of the Long Knives).

I'll ignore the kid, since I'm probably your senior, "buddy" :p

Hitler from the start had a warped definition of Socialism that wasn't in accordance with Marxist definitions. He co-opted the term to mean socially conscious capitalism. Eg, capitalism that had to operate under constraints in which actions that were profitable but were not good for the German people would be shut down. In his own words - https://files.catbox.moe/8g470w.png

Nothing in there claims Hitler and Stalin weren't allies, nor disproves the fact that Germany gave the USSR loans, oil, and other goods.

In their own words, they were opposed to each others goals. They weren't sending each other postcards or hanging out for fun. They had diametrically opposed ideologies and any alliances were built of pure practicality and to further both of their ends. Both intending the entire time to stab the other in the back.

"This is grasping at straws and you know it."

It's not. Antifa, the same party - active all over the world now, still believes this, and are fighting this battle, even if we aren't. The only reason they haven't made more progress is the fact that they are a bunch of limp wristed degenerates. Only in times of financial strife can they gain any sort of mainstream appeal.

Not during 1939, when the Pact was made and economic cooperation between the USSR and Nazi Germany began.

On this you are wrong. They were funding the radical socialists in France and other areas all throughout the 1930's. I can find citations if you want them - I might have to photo some old school paper books though.

You're honestly arguing that the Poland that was occupied by the Soviets in 1945 was "stronger" than the Poland that beat the USSR in 1921?

No, I'm stating unequivocally that at least today Poland is still the land of the Poles. Western European countries fared worse in the wake of World War 2 than those that became part of the Soviet Union. They advanced materially but lost all of their identity. Countries aren't ideas or places alone, they are people tied to a land. Blood and Soil.

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Hitler was the industrialist's bitch. They owned him lock, stock, and barrel. To call his critiques of capitalism anything but politicking is naive at best.

Antifa, the same party - active all over the world now, still believes this, and are fighting this battle, even if we aren't.

And is Antifa in the room with us now?

Both intending the entire time to stab the other in the back.

Stalin didn't believe Hitler would break the Pact, according to every historian I've read. The British, Americans, and his own spies warned of the impending attack, but he mostly ignored them. That's why the beginning of Barbarossa was so disastrous for the USSR (and for the numerous civilians murdered by the advancing Germans).

They were funding the radical socialists in France and other areas all throughout the 1930's. I can find citations if you want them

Specifically, I'd like sources that say the USSR gave arms during the 1934 riots.

And let's get to the point, was the USSR more powerful in 1941 or 1945?

No, I'm stating unequivocally that at least today Poland is still the land of the Poles.

It was the land of the Poles in 1939 when your boy unleashed a genocide upon the Polish people that they've only recently recovered from.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Hitler was the industrialist's bitch. They owned him lock, stock, and barrel. To call his critiques of capitalism anything but politicking is naive at best.

Yeah - no.

https://concisepolitics.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/hitler-arrested-baron-louis-de-rothschild.jpg

And is Antifa in the room with us now?

I don't know, are they?

Stalin didn't believe Hitler would break the Pact, according to every historian I've read. The British, Americans, and his own spies warned of the impending attack, but he mostly ignored them. That's why the beginning of Barbarossa was so disastrous for the USSR (and for the numerous civilians murdered by the advancing Germans).

I know he didn't, he thought he'd be the one to break it when he had gathered sufficient strength. The German army were greeted as liberators in almost all of the Baltic countries and the Ukraine.

Specifically, I'd like sources that say the USSR gave arms during the 1934 riots.

Popular Front (France): In May 1935, France and the Soviet Union signed a defensive alliance, and in August 1935, the 7th World Congress of the Comintern officially endorsed the Popular Front strategy. In the elections of May 1936, the Popular Front won a majority of parliamentary seats (378 deputies against 220), and Blum formed a government.

Soviets were involved in funding and helping organize the french precursors to the "Popular Front". The 1934 (far-right) uprising was against the communists that were trying to (and ultimately did) wrest control of the government. Guns though, I don't know.

And let's get to the point, was the USSR more powerful in 1941 or 1945?

Militarily they were more powerful in 1941. Territorially they were more powerful in 1945. Had operation Barbarossa not occurred the Soviet Union would have been able to capture far more territory in Europe because the Soviets would have struck when Germany was exhausted from it's conflicts with other European powers and the US. Pearl Harbor would have been allowed to occur regardless, because FDR was itching to get in prior to Barbarossa.

[–]kissfan7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah - that guy wasn't an industrialist.

Fun fact, the term "privatization" was coined by the Nazis. Corporate profits soared in Hitler's reign. It was the Aryan industrialists that put Hitler in power to begin with.

he thought he'd be the one to break it when he had gathered sufficient strength.

Then why is there no evidence of this? And why was the Red Army in such shitty condition in 1941?

Guns though, I don't know.

So this "bankrolling" of communist insurgents consisted of passing a few motions in the Comintern? Why would that necessitate giving the Soviets 200 million marks? And how does that justify the invasion of Poland, the Intelligenzaktion, the ethnic cleansing of Poles, and the Gestapo's cooperation with the NKVD?

Pearl Harbor would have been allowed to occur regardless, because FDR was itching to get in prior to Barbarossa.

Whoa, let's handle one conspiracy theory at a time, OK?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah - that guy wasn't an industrialist.

You're right, he was a leech sitting on top of productive capacity.

Fun fact, the term "privatization" was coined by the Nazis. Corporate profits soared in Hitler's reign. It was the Aryan industrialists that put Hitler in power to begin with.

In large part this is true. Much of his support in the US also came from Industrialists, Henry Ford for instance. Industrialists are productive members of society, the usurers that often end up seizing control of their creations through manipulation and malfeasance are not.

Then why is there no evidence of this?

Read Icebreaker by Suvorov, it has near ubiquitous support inside Russia and a couple of external detractors.

And why was the Red Army in such shitty condition in 1941?

The Red Army was shitty not because of manpower, but because of the incompetence of Stalin and communism in general. Intelligent officers were eliminated and replaced with inexperienced loyalists (Red Army Purges). Good tactical decisions could not be made because the game of telephone softened the blow of bad news so much that by the time it reached the generals ears it seemed like a minor inconvenience. In addition, the forces were in the middle of reorganization when the attack occurred - this wasn't on accident.

So this "bankrolling" of communist insurgents consisted of passing a few motions in the Comintern?

Money well spent, as by 1935 Marxists had taken control of the French government and put a Marxist jew named Blum in charge. This is why the French "lost" so easily to Germany. It's not like the Military in France were huge fans of their Marxist government.

Why would that necessitate giving the Soviets 200 million marks?

It wasn't a "give", it was an exchange.

And how does that justify the invasion of Poland,

Poland was invaded primarily to meet the promises of restoring Germany to it's pre-WW1 state. I'd assume you know this. Danzig and the surrounding area were majority ethnic German - as until very recently they had been Germany.

the Intelligenzaktion

This was an elimination of the people that would resist and was prudent.

the ethnic cleansing of Poles

Wasn't actually. It was the targeted elimination of jews, Nobles, Clergy, and community leaders that offered opposition to the NSDAP. War is war - if you want to occupy a territory and reshape it in your image - you either do this or throw people in camps to die. Personally I'd rather be shot outright, but your mileage may vary depending on your tolerance for lack of autonomy and penchant for slave labor.

and the Gestapo's cooperation with the NKVD?

In concordance with the pact. Germany cared about restoring pre-WW1 Germany, it truly didn't care what happened to the rest of Poland. Nor should it have. Ethnic Germans suffered much abuse at the hands of poles between WW1 and 2. Projecting this onto the modern world - I wouldn't feel sorry for the Bantu in South Africa if they got taken over by China, and if I had to make a deal to Annex parts of South Africa to save the Boers, I would.

Whoa, let's handle one conspiracy theory at a time, OK?

Are they theories though if you have reams of documentation, or merely conspiracies that occurred? I'd call them the latter. Theories cease to be such when supported by adequate evidence.