World News

You cannot say “Soviets sided with the Nazis lie" its objectively the truth

By that logic, essentially all countries in Europe allied with the Nazis:

I dont even get your point about poland its just gross and doesnt help at all

My point about "Poland": the "Polish" territories that the USSR invaded were mostly territories with Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian ethnic majorities that Poland had obtained just a few decades prior by invading said republics during the Russian civil war. The Soviets took those de-facto Polish-administered territories and created republics in which their own National languages were respected and promoted as official languages (unlike the case of Polish Lithuania for example), and the vast majority of "Polish" territories "split" during Molotov-Ribbentrop were actually not Polish.

In order for me to be convinced to your side you would need to make the case that the soviets were genuinely opposed to facism and were not just acting on opportunities that were beneficial with/without ideology. You would need to show that the Soviets attempted to form a diplomatic alliance against the nazis.

From the Wikipedia article on Maxim Litvinov, commissar of foreign affairs of the USSR between 1933 and 1939:

"In 1935, Litvinov negotiated the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance and another treaty with Czechoslovakia with the aim of containing Nazi Germany's aggression. [...] Litvinov has been considered to have concentrated on taking strong measures against Italy, Japan and Germany, and being little interested in other matters. [...] According to Soviet records, Litvinov submitted detailed arguments in favour of the proposed pact, which Stalin accepted. Litvinov stated they ought not to wait for the other side to propose what the Soviets wanted. Litvinov summarised his proposals, which were for mutual assistance in case of aggression against the Soviet Union, Britain or France; and support for all states bordering the Soviet Union, including Finland and the Baltic States. It also provided for rapid agreement on the form such assistance would take. There would be an agreement not to conclude a separate peace. [...] The Foreign Office [Britaun] confirmed to the US chargé d'affaires on 8 August 1939 the military mission, which had now left for Moscow, had been told to make every effort to prolong discussions until 1 October 1939"

I showed you the article on the previous post of Stalin offering 1 million troops to be sent to France and Poland in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, the USSR offering to assist Czechoslovakia if the rest of the allies engaged against Germany...

Look at the soviet motivation for assisting in the civil war, they were paid good for all the support they provided and benefited by gaining and ideological foothold in western europe

They didn't gain an ideological foothold in Europe. The Soviets explicitly didn't want a communist state in Spain and wanted a socialdemocrat-style republic, that's why they supported the central government and made no attempt to instigate a revolution. This is consensus amongst contemporary scholars in Spain.

Even with all that they couldnt help themselves and were purging the people that were supposed to be on their side during the fight against facisim.

Irrelevant to their international policy, besides, the great purges mostly were driven by anti-Nazi hysteria, not by anything else.

Also you completely ignore the fact that the countries around were democracies that were ideologically split and had just gone through a great war

The USSR had just gone through a similarly great war, arguably harsher: the Russian Civil War, and the internal political situation was also shaky as a consequence of the harsh policies of rapid industrialization and collectivizations taking place since 1929, why is it an excuse for the western regimes but not for the USSR?

Russia is a very very bad faith actor in europe

Modern Russia is, I don't see how that's relevant to the conversation about the USSR.

The only way they could assist was crossing countries that would absolutely not let them cross

And you don't wonder why Poland wouldn't allow Soviet troops in their territory to help against Fascism?

once the red army arrived in those countries they'd never leave

But that's not what happened? There was no general presence of Soviet troops in Socialist Poland or Socialist Germany, not to a higher degree than, say, US troops in west Germany or in fascist Spain.

To act like they were really pushing for a security pact is weak

How is it weak? I gave you overwhelming historical evidence, even from Wikipedia, which is a well-known anti-communist source, especially English Wikipedia being sourced from English-speaking sources and being edited by English-speaking editors, all of which majoritarily portray anti-communist bias.

there is no reason why any of the western powers should have trusted the soviets there was nothing to gain

The Soviets literally defeated Nazism, what do you mean there was nothing to gain? The defeat of fascism literally saved Europe...

Keep in mind that the Soviets were also building relations with germany and as they got a deal with germany they dropped Litvinov and divided up europe. At the time this happened there was no threat pushing them to rush into this deal

Uh... Germany was constantly threatening with invasion of the USSR. I linked you to the Generalplan Ost, explicit German policy of occupying and genociding all territories between Berlin and the Urals. The Nazis explicitly made propaganda about "Jewish-Bolshevism" being the root of all evil in the world...

I believe this argument is completely settled between scholars

It's all but settled between scholars, and if you had read academic sources about this instead of Reddit posts and anticommunist/anti Russian propaganda stemming from the US and EU, you'd know this... Every source I used was explicitly from Wikipedia, I'm not quoting Prolewiki here, how can you claim the scholars are settled against my point when all sourcing I used is from western Wikipedia?