this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
397 points (87.4% liked)
Memes
52735 readers
565 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But like what should they have done, reach out to other nations like UK and France to create an anti-nazi alliance?
Most of europe was very happy doing business with Nazis until they invaded them.
there were enough collaborators to continue to do so under their preferred fascist order.
Refuse to enable Nazi expansion, prepare for war, try to make allies. So carry on before they chose to make a pact. Making that pact with Nazis wasn't some inevitable law of nature they just had to do. You can always resist.
There's always a reason for all kinds of actions but it's just an attempt to avoid moral scrutiny to present the situation as inevitable. There were other options, they chose not to do those but rather made a pact. Agree or disagree with the decision from moral or some realpolitik sense, doesn't matter. Presenting it as inevitable is avoidance.
molotow-ribbentrop was to buy time to prepare for war. They built a huge industrial complex east of the Ural to prepare since they correctly predicted that their facilities in the west would soon be overrun. They also tried to find allies but were shut down at every turn. When it was clear that there were no allies to be found and every other nation had made a non-aggression pact with the nazis only then did they resort to making their own.
I don't think anyone thought the USSR did it for no reason. I'm just saying they could've chosen not to make those pacts and that's why dividing Eastern Europe with the Nazis is given as a moral black mark for USSR.
Lol, anti communists will never forgive the USSR for not letting the Nazis have all of Eastern Europe.
I don't think Nazis should've had any part of Europe tbh.
Then you probably shouldn't condemn the soviets for not letting them have it
They let Nazi Germany have parts of Poland and Lithuania in the agreement.
They weren't in a position to stop them.
We don't know how it would've played out if both Western Allies and the USSR committed publicly to declaring war in case Poland is attacked.
You're expecting the USSR to have imperilled tens of millions of lives and risk wholesale extermination by deliberately undermining their own position based solely on "well, you know for sure!"
France and UK committed to it. I don't expect the USSR to have done it, but I would've preferred to see that sort of larger deterrent.
Ok.
The USSR isn't obligated to sabotage it's own existence because some random unborn Finish person "would've preferred to see it"
Not to mention the UK and Frances commitment turned out to be extremely token, a fact that came as zero suprise to the USSR
What's this about being obligated
So what even is your position anymore? You've stayed completely from where you started
I haven't had any position on some obligations. I don't know where you got that
You have a real issue actually answering questions, don't you?
Hard to answer when you've refused to tell me what obligations you're talking about
Why does that make it hard to answer?
Because I don't know what you are referring to
You don't know what your own positions are?
I haven't had any position on obligations, that's why I'm confused by your question
Ok.
If you're just going to be literally incoherent then you might as well fuck off
Well alright
The UK and France didn't commit to jack shit. They had a long history of enabling the Nazis at that point, planning to use them as their attack dog in the east. Not only that, the USSR had been pleading for an anti-nazi alliance for a long time and got ignored.
Um, they very much did make promises to that effect. Neither were in good position to actually help the Poles when push came to shove, hence the Phony War. Brittain did some good with their navy, but neither could get enough troops to where it mattered to help, so they buckled down on ramping up their own war efforts at home to better mobilize. Did they fo it out of cowardice and throw the Poles to the wolves, or out of necessity because they would have been overrun had they over commited? That's a question that has been the subject of much study. But they both very publicly and loudly commit to their defense, they simply failed to meaningfully uphold that commitment.
Your country fought on the side of the Nazis in WW2, and helped them carry out the scorched earth policy you absolutely won't forgive the USSR for turning back.
Not sure if we are supposed to agree with everything our countries have historically done. Are you from a place where you're comfortable with doing that?
You seem pretty comfortable supporting Nazis
Well well well. How quickly one goes from "they should have done everything perfectly and not even buying time is morally acceptable, deplorable stuff really" to "oh my god what's a little Nazi collaboration between friends? Everyone was doing it anyway"
The irony of an anticommunist saying this is palpable.
Why? It bought them time to prepare further and gave them the possibility to station troops forward in land that they knew was gonna be overrun by nazis and need liberation afterwards anyway. I really don't understand what's so bad about it. You dont win wars with "moral points" but with strategy like that.
You're asking why making a pact with the Nazis is a black mark? I would think that's obvious. Same for Chamberlain and everyone else.
So your problem is that their victory over the nazis wasn't pure enough?
My issue is that these sort of deals enables Nazis to conquer much of Europe.
Stalin offered a million men to France and the UK to stop the nazis. They refused.
Meanwhile, your country was literally in the Axis in WW2, and helped the nazis carry out their atrocities.
Am I personally guilty of what happened in my country's the past or how is that relevant?
Damn, not a fan of people bringing up completely irrelevant points about what other countries should have done?
Crazy. Sure would be embarrassing if that was something you constantly did yourself.
They needed to buy time to prepare for war, it wasn't until the nazi horde was in Stalingrad that they were ready to fight back. The nazis were going to conquer as much as they did regardless. There doesn't seem to be any detrimental effect on reality to signing the pact.
You really are writing a lot of responses that don't answer the question. It's funny how you go on about there being other options while diligently refusing to actually list them.
Instead of making a pact with the Nazis, refuse to do that and prepare for war. Do you want a fucking WikiHow article detailing the steps for a troop mobilization of 1939 Soviet Union or what
They did prepare for war with the Nazis, and the pact was part of that. So I take it then your answer is that they shouldn't have prepared as much for the war with the Nazis.
Given that the level of preparedness they did manage was still only barely enough to win, you answer is ultimately that you wanted the USSR to take a course of action that would have allowed the Nazis to win the Eastern Front.
Which is ultimately always what it comes down; resentment that the Soviets won.
I don't think anyone should've made pacts with Nazis and enabled their actions through that. It's not specific to the USSR.
So? The USSR had to make a decision in the world where the West did make those pacts. What you think has zero relevancy to that.
And they could've decided differently and try to prevent the attack on Poland from happening. Instead they made a pact, jointly carved up Poland (and took over the Baltics and invaded Finland).