1: The United States Bourgeoisie bankrolled the rise of fascism in Europe.
2: The bourgeois leaders of England, France, Poland, Finland and other Western European nations either ignored, enabled, or appeased Hitler’s worst behavior in the buildup to WW2.
3: The bourgeois leaders of these countries, England in particular, pushed for disastrous bilateral security arrangements which created a domino effect leading to war, while ignoring the USSR’s suggestion of collective, anti-fascist security arrangements.
4: The bourgeois leaders of these countries pursued a policy not of containing fascist aggression, but of diplomatically isolating the USSR, in the hopes that Hitler would go East and carry out an anti-communist genocide on their behalf.
5: The bourgeois leaders of these countries, having ignored or stalled collective security proposals from the USSR, actively made bilateral non-aggression pacts with Hitler before Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed, making the USSR the last in a long line of nations to sign non-aggression pacts with Hitler, after the USSR’s collective security proposals fell through.
6: The USSR only signed Molotov-Ribbentrop to buy time. The USSR only invaded East Poland to prevent a German front from forming right at the Soviet border. This is because attempts to make mutual security arrangements with Poland fell through. The Soviets only moved into the region after the existing government had literally fled the country, leaving it ungoverned. 2 million jews in eastern poland were saved from the nazis by this action.
7: The USSR tried to purchase a strategic corridor of land from Finland that the nazis could easily use to invade the USSR. The USSR not only wanted to legally purchase this land from Finland, but to trade Finland more acres of land in exchange. i.e. an asymmetrical trade that would have ultimately benefited Finland. Finland refused because the fascist leadership of Finland wanted to see Germany invade the USSR through this strategic corridor. This led directly to the Winter War. The Finnish lost the winter war but used their intelligence that they gathered during it to collaborate with the nazis.
8: When the North Atlantic allies finally teamed up with USSR after their strategy of appeasing Hitler backfired, they immediately attempted to make asymmetrical security arrangements that would have obligated the USSR to commit far more troops and resources to the war than any other ally, essentially using the USSR as a shield against the very fascist powers they had spent the better part of a decade appeasing. The British in particular kept stalling on arrangements and pretending to be confused.
9: When the war was over the North Atlantic allies, led by the USA, who came out of the war richer than any other country on Earth, immediately committed to rehabilitating nazis, blaming the USSR, who was decimated by the war, for causing the war, and created NATO to begin encircling the USSR, 6 years before the creation of the Warsaw pact.
10: The North Atlantic allies immediately set to using the Marshall plan to rebuild the fascist German, Italian, and Japanese economies, indebting them to the United States, and orienting them towards anti-communist policy.
11: The North Atlantic allies to tried to use the Marshall plan as a proto-IMF to privatize and deregulate the economy of the war-torn USSR, and open it up to foreign capital. That the USSR rejected this was framed as aggression and used as a justification for beginning the cold war.
But hey, don’t just take my word for it, or this rough outline of what is contained in well regarded books (I implore you to read some). How about we read Albert Einstein’s words spoken at the time these events actually occurred?
A lot to unpack in this speech but the basics of what Einstein says are:
The USSR made all efforts to stop the war happening.
The western powers(UK, France, US, etc) shut the USSR out of European discussions and betrayed Czechoslovakia.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was an unhappy last resort that they were driven to, that the western powers were attempting to drive the nazis into attacking the USSR and that’s why they would not help the USSR stop them.
The USSR supported everyone while the other powers (UK, France, US, etc) strengthened the nazis and Japanese.
The appointment of Hitler as Germany’s chancellor general, as well as the rising threat from Japan, led to important changes in Soviet foreign policy. Oriented toward Germany since the treaty of Locarno (1925) and the treaty of Special Relations with Berlin (1926), the Kremlin now moved in the opposite direction by trying to establish closer ties with France and Britain to isolate the growing Nazi threat. This policy became known as “collective security” and was associated with Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet foreign minister at the time. The pursuit of collective security lasted approximately as long as he held that position. Japan’s war with China took some pressure off of Russia by allowing it to focus its diplomatic efforts on relations with Europe.
Moscow, seeing that the Red Referendum manoeuvre had failed, threw all pretence aside and came openly out for letting Hitler in.
On October 14, 1931, Remmele, one of the three official leaders of the Communist Party, with Stalinist effrontery announced the policy in the Reichstag.
“Herr Bruening has put it very plainly; once they (the Fascists) are in power, then the united front of the proletariat will be established and it will make a clean sweep of everything. (Violent applause from the Communists)…We are the victors of the coming day; and the question is no longer one of who shall vanquish whom. This question is already answered. (Applause from the Communists). The question now reads only, ‘At what moment shall we overthrow the bourgeoisie?’…We are not afraid of the Fascist gentlemen. They will shoot their bolt quicker than any other Government. (Right you are! from the Communists) …”
The Fascists, so ran the argument, would introduce inflation, there would be financial chaos, and then the proletarian victory would follow. The speech was printed with a form asking for membership of the party attached and distributed in great numbers all over Germany.
Stalinist parties are led from above. Their leaders get the line and impose it. Disobedience is labelled Trotskyism, Right deviation, and what not, and the dissidents expelled. But the situation in Germany was too tense, and violent protests from the Left Wing caused the policy to be withdrawn. But from that moment it was certain that the Communist Party leadership would never fight, and the “After Hitler, our turn” [25] was the line on which they led the party. The German leadership did not follow blindly. Some of them carried on a ceaseless struggle to the very end. But built on Moscow they faced isolation if they broke with Moscow, and the organisational vice silenced or expelled them. [26]
It’s amusing how contemporary Stalinists put so much effort into justifying a pact that Stalin himself tried to keep from public knowledge and Russians rarely want to acknowledge.
That ought to tell you that the USSR wasn’t proud of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
What’s even more amusing is a bunch of history revisionists come here to defend the argument that the communists and not the fascists were the main partners of the Nazis, lol. Seriously. They were literally part of the same military coalition.
Communists and Nazis were literally part of the same military coalition. Stalin made sure of that. He even made a toast for Hitler’s continued good health.
'I know how much the German nation loves its Fuehrer; I should therefore like to drink to his health.’
You should really be reading this as an intelligently worded sleight. Particularly given they had already begun building the 102,000 tanks that would eventually kill him. It’s the perfect thing to say when you know this man took power on just 42% of the vote, and that support would actually be lower after killing and suppressing all opposition if not for the terror campaigns and suppression.
When you know you’re already planning to kill this man drinking to his health is quite apt.
Yes, the UK and France were likewise preparing for war. So how can Western nations be condemned for buying time by negotiating with Hitler, if you are willing to excuse Stalin for doing precisely the same thing?
The Red Army and the Wehrmacht coordinated a combined attack on Poland. Sounds like a military coalition to me.
For all their faults, the armies of the West never conducted a joint offensive with Nazis. Almost a century later, the West considers its attempts to negotiate with Hitler a complete failure, even a source of shame. Nobody here will defend it.
But you can always count on Stalinists to shamelessly defend striking a deal with Nazis.
Moscow, seeing that the Red Referendum manoeuvre had failed, threw all pretence aside and came openly out for letting Hitler in.
On October 14, 1931, Remmele, one of the three official leaders of the Communist Party, with Stalinist effrontery announced the policy in the Reichstag.
“Herr Bruening has put it very plainly; once they (the Fascists) are in power, then the united front of the proletariat will be established and it will make a clean sweep of everything. (Violent applause from the Communists)…We are the victors of the coming day; and the question is no longer one of who shall vanquish whom. This question is already answered. (Applause from the Communists). The question now reads only, ‘At what moment shall we overthrow the bourgeoisie?’…We are not afraid of the Fascist gentlemen. They will shoot their bolt quicker than any other Government. (Right you are! from the Communists) …”
The Fascists, so ran the argument, would introduce inflation, there would be financial chaos, and then the proletarian victory would follow. The speech was printed with a form asking for membership of the party attached and distributed in great numbers all over Germany.
Stalinist parties are led from above. Their leaders get the line and impose it. Disobedience is labelled Trotskyism, Right deviation, and what not, and the dissidents expelled. But the situation in Germany was too tense, and violent protests from the Left Wing caused the policy to be withdrawn. But from that moment it was certain that the Communist Party leadership would never fight, and the “After Hitler, our turn” [25] was the line on which they led the party. The German leadership did not follow blindly. Some of them carried on a ceaseless struggle to the very end. But built on Moscow they faced isolation if they broke with Moscow, and the organisational vice silenced or expelled them. [26]
The Soviets wouldn’t have been able to fight without American Lend-Lease.
Not a single piece of american lend-lease arrived until after the battle of Moscow. The war had already turned. That’s not to say it wasn’t useful, more germans would have escaped encirclements and pace would have been slower as a result, it would have taken 12-18 months longer. But every academic historian agrees that the germans had lost the war as of the battle of moscow. Trying to present this as the war having been won by the american aid is absurd and there are no academic historians that agree with it, at best you’ll get them to hedge and say they don’t know the impact.
old Stalinist propaganda, and barely worth refuting.
Einstein, barely worth refuting. Your brain must be MASSIVE mate.
You’re linking to a book written in 1937. That predates the molotov-ribbentrop pact by 2 years lmao. It has zero relevance here other than being “stalin bad grrr stalin was mean to trotsky!” which is true but completely irrelevant to the nazis. I will say that the idea that stalin had anything to do with the failure of the german revolution is absurd. The german revolution failed the day Rosa was murdered and if there is any event in history I would change with a time machine it would be her death. It occurred at an utterly pivotal moment that guaranteed the following rise of fascism.
If lend-lease didn’t contribute to Soviet success against Germany, then by the same reasoning Western military aid didn’t contribute to Ukrainian success against Russia. After all, nearly all of it arrived after the Battle of Kyiv.
I didn’t say it did not contribute. I said that it was fundamentally too late for american lend-lease to change the outcome of the war, it had already been won. The nazis had one chance to win and once they were repelled they were never going to catch up with the speed of Soviet manufacturing.
Some British lend-lease had arrived shortly before that battle. So they do not lose some credit, only the american lend-lease loses credit.
then by the same reasoning Western military aid didn’t contribute to Ukrainian success against Russia. After all, nearly all of it arrived after the Battle of Kyiv.
When ukraine actually breaks through russia’s defensive lines we can start talking about its effect on their success against russia. As you rightfully point out all of their gains at the start of this war occurred before any aid, and the lines of been more or less stagnant ever since. Their counter offensives this spring (became a summer offensive) have yet to break a single line, let alone all 3 lines. I think we should be expecting at least antoher 18 months of this assuming negotiations continue to be refused and that it is even undecided as of this point in time.
The Soviets, as per the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Siri, what does the words “main” and “allies” mean
Fucking funny to say this in the “confidently incorrect” community. It is historical revisionism.
The soviets did absolutely everything they could to try and convince France and the UK to take action against Hitler but they were hoping Hitler would attack the USSR.
The ACTUAL historic timeline is like this:
1: The United States Bourgeoisie bankrolled the rise of fascism in Europe.
2: The bourgeois leaders of England, France, Poland, Finland and other Western European nations either ignored, enabled, or appeased Hitler’s worst behavior in the buildup to WW2.
3: The bourgeois leaders of these countries, England in particular, pushed for disastrous bilateral security arrangements which created a domino effect leading to war, while ignoring the USSR’s suggestion of collective, anti-fascist security arrangements.
4: The bourgeois leaders of these countries pursued a policy not of containing fascist aggression, but of diplomatically isolating the USSR, in the hopes that Hitler would go East and carry out an anti-communist genocide on their behalf.
5: The bourgeois leaders of these countries, having ignored or stalled collective security proposals from the USSR, actively made bilateral non-aggression pacts with Hitler before Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed, making the USSR the last in a long line of nations to sign non-aggression pacts with Hitler, after the USSR’s collective security proposals fell through.
6: The USSR only signed Molotov-Ribbentrop to buy time. The USSR only invaded East Poland to prevent a German front from forming right at the Soviet border. This is because attempts to make mutual security arrangements with Poland fell through. The Soviets only moved into the region after the existing government had literally fled the country, leaving it ungoverned. 2 million jews in eastern poland were saved from the nazis by this action.
7: The USSR tried to purchase a strategic corridor of land from Finland that the nazis could easily use to invade the USSR. The USSR not only wanted to legally purchase this land from Finland, but to trade Finland more acres of land in exchange. i.e. an asymmetrical trade that would have ultimately benefited Finland. Finland refused because the fascist leadership of Finland wanted to see Germany invade the USSR through this strategic corridor. This led directly to the Winter War. The Finnish lost the winter war but used their intelligence that they gathered during it to collaborate with the nazis.
8: When the North Atlantic allies finally teamed up with USSR after their strategy of appeasing Hitler backfired, they immediately attempted to make asymmetrical security arrangements that would have obligated the USSR to commit far more troops and resources to the war than any other ally, essentially using the USSR as a shield against the very fascist powers they had spent the better part of a decade appeasing. The British in particular kept stalling on arrangements and pretending to be confused.
9: When the war was over the North Atlantic allies, led by the USA, who came out of the war richer than any other country on Earth, immediately committed to rehabilitating nazis, blaming the USSR, who was decimated by the war, for causing the war, and created NATO to begin encircling the USSR, 6 years before the creation of the Warsaw pact.
10: The North Atlantic allies immediately set to using the Marshall plan to rebuild the fascist German, Italian, and Japanese economies, indebting them to the United States, and orienting them towards anti-communist policy.
11: The North Atlantic allies to tried to use the Marshall plan as a proto-IMF to privatize and deregulate the economy of the war-torn USSR, and open it up to foreign capital. That the USSR rejected this was framed as aggression and used as a justification for beginning the cold war.
But hey, don’t just take my word for it, or this rough outline of what is contained in well regarded books (I implore you to read some). How about we read Albert Einstein’s words spoken at the time these events actually occurred?
A lot to unpack in this speech but the basics of what Einstein says are:
The USSR made all efforts to stop the war happening.
The western powers(UK, France, US, etc) shut the USSR out of European discussions and betrayed Czechoslovakia.
Molotov-Ribbentrop was an unhappy last resort that they were driven to, that the western powers were attempting to drive the nazis into attacking the USSR and that’s why they would not help the USSR stop them.
The USSR supported everyone while the other powers (UK, France, US, etc) strengthened the nazis and Japanese.
I also thought it was funny for the guy to say this in !confidently_incorrect. Thank you for the history class.
They’re just repeating old Stalinist propaganda.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch12.htm
It’s amusing how contemporary Stalinists put so much effort into justifying a pact that Stalin himself tried to keep from public knowledge and Russians rarely want to acknowledge.
That ought to tell you that the USSR wasn’t proud of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
What’s even more amusing is a bunch of history revisionists come here to defend the argument that the communists and not the fascists were the main partners of the Nazis, lol. Seriously. They were literally part of the same military coalition.
Communists and Nazis were literally part of the same military coalition. Stalin made sure of that. He even made a toast for Hitler’s continued good health.
You should really be reading this as an intelligently worded sleight. Particularly given they had already begun building the 102,000 tanks that would eventually kill him. It’s the perfect thing to say when you know this man took power on just 42% of the vote, and that support would actually be lower after killing and suppressing all opposition if not for the terror campaigns and suppression.
When you know you’re already planning to kill this man drinking to his health is quite apt.
Yes, the UK and France were likewise preparing for war. So how can Western nations be condemned for buying time by negotiating with Hitler, if you are willing to excuse Stalin for doing precisely the same thing?
Holy fucking shit, the gall of saying communists and nazis were part of a military coalition, lol. This has to be a bit, given the community we’re in.
The Red Army and the Wehrmacht coordinated a combined attack on Poland. Sounds like a military coalition to me.
For all their faults, the armies of the West never conducted a joint offensive with Nazis. Almost a century later, the West considers its attempts to negotiate with Hitler a complete failure, even a source of shame. Nobody here will defend it.
But you can always count on Stalinists to shamelessly defend striking a deal with Nazis.
Removed by mod
The Soviets wouldn’t have been able to fight without American Lend-Lease. They took Berlin in American tanks.
https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/october-23/
The rest of your maundering is old Stalinist propaganda, and barely worth refuting.
I will, however, link to this:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch12.htm
Not a single piece of american lend-lease arrived until after the battle of Moscow. The war had already turned. That’s not to say it wasn’t useful, more germans would have escaped encirclements and pace would have been slower as a result, it would have taken 12-18 months longer. But every academic historian agrees that the germans had lost the war as of the battle of moscow. Trying to present this as the war having been won by the american aid is absurd and there are no academic historians that agree with it, at best you’ll get them to hedge and say they don’t know the impact.
Einstein, barely worth refuting. Your brain must be MASSIVE mate.
You’re linking to a book written in 1937. That predates the molotov-ribbentrop pact by 2 years lmao. It has zero relevance here other than being “stalin bad grrr stalin was mean to trotsky!” which is true but completely irrelevant to the nazis. I will say that the idea that stalin had anything to do with the failure of the german revolution is absurd. The german revolution failed the day Rosa was murdered and if there is any event in history I would change with a time machine it would be her death. It occurred at an utterly pivotal moment that guaranteed the following rise of fascism.
If lend-lease didn’t contribute to Soviet success against Germany, then by the same reasoning Western military aid didn’t contribute to Ukrainian success against Russia. After all, nearly all of it arrived after the Battle of Kyiv.
I didn’t say it did not contribute. I said that it was fundamentally too late for american lend-lease to change the outcome of the war, it had already been won. The nazis had one chance to win and once they were repelled they were never going to catch up with the speed of Soviet manufacturing.
Some British lend-lease had arrived shortly before that battle. So they do not lose some credit, only the american lend-lease loses credit.
When ukraine actually breaks through russia’s defensive lines we can start talking about its effect on their success against russia. As you rightfully point out all of their gains at the start of this war occurred before any aid, and the lines of been more or less stagnant ever since. Their counter offensives this spring (became a summer offensive) have yet to break a single line, let alone all 3 lines. I think we should be expecting at least antoher 18 months of this assuming negotiations continue to be refused and that it is even undecided as of this point in time.