this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
94 points (96.1% liked)
Slop.
713 readers
510 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find that argument especially ridiculous since France and Britain just handed the Axis a big chunk Czechoslovakia on a silver platter. In exchange for "peace", lmao.
Meanwhile, Poland had almost entirely fallen by the time the Soviet Union was involved. The USSR gave Germany nothing of Poland, the Germans took it for themselves, and the Soviet invasion weeks later gained the Germans basically nothing.
And let's not forget, Poland collaborated with Nazi Germany as well. When Germany started their offensive into Czechoslovakia, Poland started their own, and were rewarded with land for it. A worse collaboration, if anything.
So really, if we're to follow their stated logic (which we shouldn't), almost all European victims got their "just desserts". In reality, if even just a small number of countries listened to the USSR (Poland and Romania, or Britain and France), and formed a military agreement, Hitler and the holocaust could have been nipped in the bud.
They had an agreement! The French literally had a military alliance they "reluctantly signed" with the USSR in 1935! Including Czechoslovakia too! But the goddamn liberals were too anti-communist to follow through and literally got millions killed over it.
"the reluctance of the British and the French governments to sign a full-scale anti-German political and military alliance with the Soviets led to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact"
Wonderful line from the Wikipedia page you linked that explains it well.
The Munich agreement wasn't even popular in it's time, the anti-agreement protest in Britain was three times larger than the crowd welcoming Chamberlain.
Also, slightly related tangent. Western politicians will often try to justify military involvement by invoking "appeasement" or "Munich", but Saddam or Khomeini are not Hitler, the situation is nowhere near the same. If there's any country that has deserved an early military intervention instead of appeasement, it's America.