JoeySteel

Taiwan is not a country

Its not what they've historically called themselves and it's not what is on their passports. What is on their passport is the "Republic of China" and the ROC claims the entire mainland (the PRC) and parts of Mongolia/india/japan and Myanmar as their territory.

ROC is a illegitimate state that no one except a handful of pacific Islands recognise and were it not for the White supremacist USA existing the PRC would've rolled over ROC 7 decades ago and the civil war would've ended there

There is currently a hangmans noose around PRC and ROC has been at the forefront of this war against China. Acting in the interests of the international bourgeoisie and principally the USA by being an unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of China.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vAfeYMONj9E

The KMT fled to Taiwan massacred the natives (the people who did deserve the right of self determination) then used Taiwan as a base for sabotage, assassination and attempted reinvasion of China all helped by USA. Chiang Kai Shek was gearing up for an invasion as late as the 60s during Chinas famine

As this lib explains (from a lib "taiwan is a free country perspective") that once Taiwan falls it opens up the ocean for the Chinese navy and the ability for US to protect Japan/Korea comes into question and the US alliances will likely fall apart

But there’s more to this than nationalism and identity. Taiwan’s position in the so-called “first island chain” skirting China’s southeast makes it HIGHLY important from a strategic point of view. Controlling it could fatally undermine America’s current power in the region. “If Taiwan falls. If Taiwan were to be occupied by the Chinese military… Analyst Ian Easton wrote a book “The Chinese Invasion Threat” working through these strategic questions. “Then it becomes almost impossible to defend our entire network of treaty allies in the Asia-Pacific. How do we defend Japan from a blockade at that point, or how do we defend South Korea? How do we defend the Philippines? Because at any time they could be invaded from Taiwan if China is there.”

https://youtu.be/VkuNWDG3yNM?t=1107

ROC does not deserve the right of self determination and PRC must take back their territory from the descendants of fascists who then aligned against the majority of Chinese people for 7 decades with the USA. It's just icing on the cake that it destroys USAs entire network of treaty allies in the Asia-pacific :chefs-kiss:

Some accounts need to be settled and the National People’s Congress was completely correct to vote 2896 to zero on the " Republic of China" issue

The idea of self determination for Taiwan is as ridiculous as suggesting the British in Northern Ireland should have the right of self determination.

Red fascism came from anarchists who swallowed antiCommunist propaganda and believe communists = nazis

The problem with this is that the Soviets led by Stalin saved the world from nazi fascism and made the largest contribution to the world in the fight against racism and national liberation movements worldwide

If USSR lost world war 2 the post war period would be dominated by fascist Italy, Japan and a Nazi Germany with the resources and land of the USSR. There almost certainly would still be colonies as USSR played a pivotal role in destroying the British empire also (the Suez crisis for instance... Russian technical expertise was given to Egyptians in managing the Suez canal largely seen as the end of British empire)

Like these motherfuckers think the same people who liberated Auschwitz and hunted nazis all over europe are the same because....reasons?

I guess Anarchists will reply that the Soviets were authoritarian (as if there is another way to build and defend your revolution)

But if there problem is with authoritarianism then why are anarchists not fash with a cool drawn @ ?

Afterall anarchists, when they have come to power, have setup Dictatorships of the Proletariat in mahknos Ukraine and Catalonia where they had secret police, total monopoly on newspapers, banned newspapers that werent anarchist ones, own judiciary, summary executions for suspected counter-revolutionaries (and due to their aversion to prisons were more likely just to execute people) and labour camps ie. Gulags

Under Mahknos Ukraine they even went as far to chain gang peasants for slave labour

So if Communists should have to wear the albatross of the occasional human rights abuses (and they were occasional and much better than capitalist nations who let people freeze ito death in the streets then whine when some counter revolutionary gets a beating or thrown in prison) then why dont anarchists?

Because communists say "we are going to create a dictatorship of the proletariat where workers own, control and dictate everything"

Anarchists say they are against all hierarchy until they come to power and throw that in the trash along with their opposition to a Proletarian state and instead setup a smaller state with all the features of say USSR/Dprk/Cuba just without the centralisation of production and the military means to defend itself

Ironically, those protests are in international solidarity with the US BLM movement - not with the US black lives matter movement in international solidarity with Yemen/Libya/China/Nigeria or any other of the many nations under the yoke of US imperialism etc

Well done on proving my point

I've been dunked!

Anti civ types can fuck all the way off

Their entire outlook is based on an ahististorical and colonial view of the world and (absolutely unsurprisingly) due to their anti civilisation and doomer outlook they end up repeating ecofascist nonsense

As the end of Western civilisation (and what the West has to offer the world.... Where once it at least offered the thin veneer of civilisation and human progress. Today it stands for neverending war, oligarchy and nihilism) comes to an end so those living in the West saw, not transformation but the end of everything

In the twilight of every civilisation you see this pattern of doomerism repeated in its culture and writings

I've no doubt some kind of collapse is going to happen. This will afford the progressive part of humanity an opportunity to lynch the Ceos and Shareholders and build a new society free of wage slavery (even if materially we are a lot poorer)

But doomerism is inherently reactionary and in the revolutionary spirit of every socialist or communist revolutionary society we saw what humanity can do when its not shackled to the chains of profit and beholden to a parasite class

Traitors all the way down, right?

No one ever said a lot of the Communists that were shot over that period were brazen counter-revolutionaries that one day woke up and marched into the camp of counter-revolution.

By holding onto bad ideas, bad theory and terrible analysis they walked step by slow step into open counter-revolution.

Trotsky (and his followers) for instance did not believe at the time that the Soviet Union would last a day versus German Imperialism. This defeatism that coloured their outlook meant "given that the USSR will fall in a war we must make peace at any cost and Stalins path to confrontation will result in absolute disaster".

Can we, however, expect that the Soviet Union will come out of the coming great war without defeat? To this frankly posed question, we will answer as frankly: If the war should remain only a war, the defeat of the Soviet Union would be inevitable. In a technical, economic, and military sense, imperialism in incomparably more strong. If it is not paralyzed by revolution in the West, imperialism will sweep away the regime which issued from the October revolution.

Trotsky, Revolution Betrayed (1936)

This is what Trotskys followers believed. That the USSR would fall.

The Moscow Trials were largely about the fact Trotsky and Tukhachevsky wanting to carve off a huge rump of the Soviet Union (Ukraine) to the Hitlerites for assistance in coming to power. They believed the USSR was going to be defeated anyway. Better to present the land Hitler had demanded in MeinKampf for Lebensraum (the Ukraine for its Oil fields).

This is why even in 1939 Trotsky was writing about the "independence of Ukraine" despite the independence forces being bourgeois nationalists and fascists who would only in a few short years setup their own SS divisions and collaborate with Nazis under Nazi occupation. While the pro Communist part of the population was pro-Stalin

Leon Trotsky, Independence of the Ukraine and Sectarian Muddleheads, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/ukraine.htm

In the 1980s both Arch J Getty and (trotskyite) historian Pierre Broue discovered that a bloc was created in the USSR which Trotsky had denied his entire life

“[The bloc] is organized. In it have entered the Zinovievites, the Sten-Lominadze group and the Trotskyites (former ‘[capitulators]’). The group of Safar. Tarkhkan has not formally entered yet – they stand on too extreme a position; they will enter in a very short time. – The declaration of Z. and K. concerning their enormous mistake in ’27 was made during negotiations with our people concerning the bloc, immediately before the exile of Z and K.” - Sedov to his father Trotsky

Pierre Broue, The “Bloc” of the Oppositions against Stalin in the USSR in 1932, https://www.marxists.org/archive/broue/1980/01/bloc.html

“It is clear, then, that Trotsky did have a clandestine organization inside the USSR in this period and that he maintained communication with it. It is equally clear that a united oppositional bloc was formed in 1932”

(Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered, 1933-1938)

“Stalin must be killed!” –Leon Sedov

“Stalin… is crushing the country … Inplacable hatred is accumulating around him, and a terrible vengeance hangs over his head… An assassination attempt? It is possible that this regime… will ultimately suffer individual terror. One can add that it would be contrary to the laws of history that the gangsters in power not be subject to acts of vengeance…” –Leon Trotsky

About the same time American historian Arch Getty was discovering that Trotsky had secretly sent letters to at least Radek, Sokol’nikov, Preobrazhenskii, Kollontai, and Litvinov. The first three had been Trotskyites before publicly recanting their views. Getty did not find the letters – only the certified mail receipts for them in the Trotsky Harvard Archive. Getty realized this meant that the Trotsky Archive has been ‘purged.’ These letters had been removed. Other materials had undoubtedly been purged as well.

Therefore it has been well established by scholars by the mid-1980s that a Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc did in fact exist and that it was formed in 1932 and that Zinoviev and Kamenev were personally involved. Sedov also foresaw the entry into the group of Safarov, who in any case had a group of his own.

The reason the Soviet state came down on them like a ton of bricks was because they had moved into open killings like they did when they Assassinated Kirov.

Na the CPSU ruthlessly purged the government and armed forces of their fifth column. It's wild to me that European country after European country collapsed in the face of Nazi aggression due to Nazi sympathisers creating a fifth column in France/Czechoslovakia/Poland/Norway and the Netherlands fell overnight in some cases. France lasted 6 weeks before the Vichy government were collaborating.

But somehow the Soviets wouldn't have had a fifth column susceptible to Nazism despite that form of fascism basically originating from the White Guardists and Black Hundreds who lynched jews and hated Communism and a lot of those White Guardists would still be in the Soviet military 20 years later on the eve of ww2

But nah, lol, the Moscow trials were somehow "subjects of torture" despite the fact the trials of 37 and 38 knew they would face a firing squad (after all of the 36 trial were executed) so why would they lie?

We know now that it took US military 18 months of torture to get some reliable information from a prisoner of war. Yet apparently the Soviets can torture a confession spanning hundreds of pages, admitting to some things they were charged with and denying others without leaving a physical mark on them as they were trials open to the worlds press and diplomats. All within a few days or weeks. Not to mention the Ambassador of the US, Joseph Davies (trained as a lawyer), would write extensively on the trials being legitimate after witnessing them with his own eyes (after hearing the rumours of them being show trials.)

I’m not convinced most of them were some sort of traitors.

The grandson of an officer who was executed in the purge and always had believed he was innocent read the transcript of his Grandfathers in 2000 as he was a Colonel in the Russian army and could be trusted to read it in the reading room. Which was classified under Kruschev and remained so until 2018 to the public. His Grandfather was linked to tukhachevsky. After reading theTranscript he came away convinced Tukhachevksy, his Grandfather and the rest of the officers were guilty.

“My grandfather and Tukhachevsky were friends. And grandfather was on the judicial panel that judged both Tukhachevsky and Eideman. My interest in this case became even stronger after the well-known publications of procuror Viktorov, who wrote that Iakov Alksnis was very active at the trial, harrassed the accused. . . . But in the trial transcript everything was just the opposite. Grandfather only asked two or three questions during the entire trial. But the strangest thing is the behavior of the accused. Newspaper accounts claim that all the defendants denied their guilt completely. But according to the transcript they fully admitted their guilt. I realize that an admission of guilt itself can be the result of torture. But in the transcript it was something else entirely: a huge amount of detail, long dialogues, accusations of one another, a mass of precision. It’s simply impossible to stage-manage something like this. . . . I know nothing about the nature of the conspiracy. But of the fact that there really did exist a conspiracy within the Red Army and that Tukhachevsky participated in it I am completely convinced today.”

–Colonel Alksnis (Elementy, 2000)

My conviction that Tukhachevsky and his colleagues were simply forced to incriminate themselves under torture was seriously shaken, because judging by the transcript, they gave their testimonies quite sincerely. After reviewing the transcript of the process, I came to the conclusion that there was still a “military conspiracy”, or something like that, in the Red Army.

https://diplomaticpost.co.uk/index.php/2020/07/15/the-moscow-trials-colonel-viktor-alksnis-read-the-tukhachevsky-transcript-and-came-away-convinced-he-was-guilty/

Someone doesnt know what General Plan Ost was

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

If they had done that (As Bukharin had wanted to) General Plan Ost would be a reality and we would talk about Slavs like how Native Americans are now talked about

The post ww2 period would be dominated by Nazi Germany(but now with the full might of Russias landmass and natural resoruces and enslaved population), Imperial japan and Fascist Italy

There would be no socialist revolutions or national liberation struggles after ww2 without the Ussr and colonies might literally still exist

Actually thinking about it this is probably their heaven as Neolibs are basically fascists with extra steps

If you believe that the Moscow Trials were a hoax then sure

In reality they were all guilty of the crimes charged against them.

When Kirov was assassinated in 1934 by Leonid the NKVD uncovered a wide ranging conspiracy to murder the Soviet leadership.

We're 80+ years from that event and bourgeois historians told the West nonstop for those 8 decades that Stalin killed Kirov to justify the crackdown on the opposition.

Because Kirovs assassin in custody gave up a circle of names in terrorist organisations and then those terrorists gave up ever more names.

If Stalin had Kirov killed then it shows the entire thing from the onset was a setup to justify the ensuing "Show Trials"

We're 80 years from those events and there has been 3 studies on the Kirov assasination,

By Kirilina, Lenoe and Grover Furr.

2 of them are bourgeois historians and come to the conclusion that Kirov was murdered by a "lone gunman" whilst Furr tears apart both their studies to show how disingenous their work is and shows how he was connected to a Trotskyite-Zinovieite bloc that show it was a bloc dedicated to assassinating the Soviet leadership

What's more, reading Lenoes study he spends 15 pages saying how much he hates socialism, hates stalin and hates the Soviets before stating his conclusion in the introduction (that Kirov wasn't killed by Stalin).

Because he knew that this tore down a key piece of Western propaganda against the Soviet Union, Stalin and socialism - that Kirov was genuinely assassinated and not murdered to justify the so-called "show trials"

Trotsky immediately pens a an article saying Stalin had Kirov killed and was such a monster he was a pall bearer at his funeral. IE. Stalin was such a ruthless killer he'd murder you then carry your coffin to the grave.

So we know Trotsky lied about Kirov and we know he lied about setting up an illegal bloc

In the year 2000, Tukhachevskys grandson (now a colonel in the Russian army) was granted access to the Tukhachevsky trial transcript that was made confidential under Kruschev and remained confidential to the wider public until 2018.

Tukhachevskys grandson was raised as an anti-Stalinist (and why not? Soviet leadership had his grandfather shot!).

He read the transcript and came away convinced his grandfather had been part of a conspiracy.

https://diplomaticpost.co.uk/index.php/2020/07/15/the-moscow-trials-colonel-viktor-alksnis-read-the-tukhachevsky-transcript-and-came-away-convinced-he-was-guilty/

In hindsight it all makes sense. Why would they be "show trials" when they were trials opened to the worlds press. The American ambassador at the time (trained as a lawyer) believed the trials were authentic.

People seem to forget the trials happened in the years preceding World War 2 when pretty much every government in Europe fell within days or weeks due to amazing Nazi foreign policy of building fifth columns inside countries.

There were many in the Soviet Union that would rather have ceded massive amounts of land to the Nazis in fear of war (particularly Ukraine which Hitler had already specifically mentioned he wanted for German 'Lebensraum' as well as the oil deposits).

You should its a good read but fair enough

Look i know i look like a bit of a prick copy pasting a huge thing i wrote a while back however when i seriously studied the origins of ww2 i was gobsmacked and felt like a huge veil of propaganda i had grown up with was lifted.

I perhaps urge you to return to it when youre more in the mood for a long detailed read

"For example, people ask with an air of innocence how the Soviet Union could consent to improve political relations with a state of the fascist type. Is that possible? they ask. But they forget that it is not a question of our attitude towards the internal regime of another country, but of the foreign relations between two states. They forget that we adhere to the position of not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and, correspondingly, of not tolerating interference in our own internal affairs.** Furthermore, they forget an important principle of our foreign policy, which was formulated by Comrade Stalin at the Eighteenth Party Congresses follows:

“We stand for peace and the strengthening of business relations with all countries. That is our position; and we shall adhere to this position as long as these countries maintain like relations with the Soviet Union, and as long as they make no attempt to trespass on the interests of our country.”

The meaning of these words is quite clear: the Soviet Union strives to maintain friendly relations with all non-Soviet countries, provided these countries maintain a like attitude towards the Soviet Union.(Ibid)."

So what was the result of the Soviets signing the pact after the British and French had sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler as a down-payment to invade the USSR? A week later the British were forced to declare war on Nazi Germany.

The Soviet had flipped the tables on the British and French (and why the bourgeois present the “red-brown alliance!” because they don’t want to admit they were outplayed). The Soviets had secured their 2 front war meaning that when war eventually came to the Soviet Union…Germany would already be fighting two fronts.

The Soviets were determined for peace and they aimed, consistently for peace. It was not their job to liberate the world from German fascism (yet this would be exactly what they did, The Soviets liberated Auschwitz).

WW2 cost the Soviets 27 million of their own people - they had every right to attempt peace by any means necessary and only at the 11th hour, after the British and French refused again , did they realise they were on their own and they had to buy time for themselves.

I must admit I’m with Grover Furr on his conclusion though. If the Soviets had been successful in getting an anti-Nazi alliance I’ve no doubt that the Brits and French would’ve done nothing as Germans invaded Poland while USSR would’ve been bound to defend Poland only for the Brits and French to do nothing (as the Brits and French did to Czechoslovakia)

Upon realising they were being back-stabbed by the Brits and French - the Soviet Union would now be at war with Germany with no Western Front.

In a round about way of history it is better that the Brits and French connived with Hitler.

That the Soviets, in turn, fucked over the Brits/Poles and French after they refused an alliance because then the Soviets were able to force Britain, Poland and France into the war for an entire year before the Soviets were forced to enter it

It might be attributed, for example, to the fear that a revolution might break out if the non-aggressive states were to go to war and the war were to assume world – wide proportions. The bourgeois politicians know, of course, that the first imperialist world war led to the victory of the revolution in one of the largest countries. They are afraid that the second imperialist world war may also lead to the victory of the revolution in one or several countries.

But at present this is not the sole or even the chief reason. The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of nonintervention, a position of “neutrality.”

Formally speaking, the policy of non-intervention might be defined as follows: “Let each country defend itself from the aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That is not our affair. We shall trade both with the aggressors and with their victims.” But actually speaking, the policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war, and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work: not to hinder Japan, say, from embroiling herself in a war with China, or, better still, with the Soviet Union: to allow all the belligerents to sink deeply into the mire of war, to encourage them surreptitiously in this, to allow them to weaken and exhaust one another; and then, when they have become weak enough, to appear on the scene with fresh strength, to appear, of course, “in the interests of peace,” and to dictate conditions to the enfeebled belligerents.

Cheap and easy!"

-Comrade Stalin, Report on the Work Of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the CPSUB, March 1939

So you can see Stalin (and the Soviets) didn’t trust the fascists or the capitalists one whit. Also read the entire report as it gives a much fuller picture and as you can see I’ve already separated this into 3 different posts due to character limit

Further:

"The foreign policy of the Soviet Union is clear and explicit.

We stand for peace and the strengthening of business relations with all countries. That is our position; and we shall adhere to this position as long as these countries maintain like relations with the Soviet Union, and as long as they make no attempt to trespass on the interests of our country.

We stand for peaceful, close and friendly relations with all the neighbouring countries which have common frontiers with the U.S.S.R. That is our position; and we shall adhere to this position as long as these countries maintain like relations with the Soviet Union, and as long as they make no attempt to trespass, directly or indirectly, on the integrity and inviolability of the frontiers of the Soviet state.

We stand for the support of nations which are the victims of aggression and are fighting for the independence of their country.

We are not afraid of the threats of aggressors, and are ready to deal two blows for every blow delivered by instigators of war who attempt to violate the Soviet borders. (Ibid)"

Further:

"The tasks of the Party in the sphere of foreign policy are:

To continue the policy of peace and of strengthening business relations with all countries;

To be cautious and not allow our country to be drawn into conflicts by warmongers who are accustomed to have others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them;

To strengthen the might of our Red Army and Red Navy to the utmost;

To strengthen the international bonds of friendship with the working people of all countries, who are interested in peace and friendship among nations. (ibid)"

But this was in March 1939 and the Molotov Pact was signed in August

So what then, did Molotov say in August 31, 1939:

"What have the negotiations with Great Britain and France shown?

The Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations have shown that the position of Great Britain and France is marked by glaring contradictions throughout.

Judge for yourselves.

On the one hand, Great Britain and France demanded that the U.S.S.R. should give military assistance to Poland in case of aggression. The U.S.S.R., as you know, was willing to meet this demand provided she herself received like assistance from Great Britain and France. On the other hand, Great Britain and France brought Poland on to the scene, who resolutely declined military assistance on the part of the U.S.S.R. Just try to reach an agreement regarding mutual assistance under such circumstances, when assistance on the part of the U.S.S.R. is declared beforehand to be superfluous and obtrusive.

Further: on the one hand, Great Britain and France offered to guarantee the Soviet Union military assistance against aggression in return for like assistance on the part of the U.S.S.R. On the other hand, they hedged round their assistance with such provisos regarding indirect aggression as were calculated to convert this assistance into a fiction and to provide them with a formal legal excuse for evading the rendering of assistance and for leaving the U.S.S.R. isolated in face of an aggressor. Just try to distinguish between such a “pact of mutual assistance” and a pact of more or less camouflaged chicanery. (Amusement.)

Further: on the one hand, Great Britain and France stressed the importance and gravity of the negotiations for a pact of mutual assistance and demanded that the U.S.S.R. should treat the matter seriously and settle all questions relating to the pact without delay. On the other hand, they themselves displayed extreme dilatoriness and treated the negotiations very lightly, entrusting them to minor individuals who were not invested with adequate powers. It is enough to mention that the British and French military missions came to Moscow without any definite powers and without the right to conclude any kind of military convention. (Animation.)More, the British military mission arrived in Moscow without any mandate at all (loud laughter), and it was only on the demand of our military mission that, on the very eve of the breakdown of the negotiations, they presented written credentials. But even these credentials were of the vaguest kind, that is, credentials that were not up to par. Just try to distinguish between this light-minded attitude towards the negotiations on the part of Great Britain and France and a frivolous make-believe at negotiations designed to discredit the whole business.

Such were the intrinsic contradictions in the attitude of Great Britain and France towards the negotiations with the U.S.S.R. which led to their breakdown.

What is the root of these contradictions in the position of Great Britain and France?

In a few words, it can be put as follows. On the one hand, the British and French governments fear aggression, and for that reason would like to have a pact of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union, inasmuch as it would strengthen them, Great Britain and France. But, on the other hand, the British and French governments are afraid that the conclusion of a real pact of mutual assistance with the U.S.S.R. may strengthen our country, the Soviet Union, which, it appears, does not answer their purpose. It must be admitted that these fears of theirs outweighed other considerations. It is only in this light that we can understand the position of Poland, who is acting on the instructions of Great Britain and France.

I shall now pass to the Soviet-German pact of non- aggression.

The decision to conclude a pact of non-aggression between the U.S.S.R. and Germany was adopted after the military negotiations with France and Great Britain had reached an impasse owing to the insurmountable differences I have mentioned. As the negotiations had shown that the conclusion of a pact of mutual assistance was not to be expected, we could not but explore other possibilities of ensuring peace and averting the danger of a war between Germany and the U.S.S.R. If the British and French governments refused to reckon with this, that is their lookout. It is our duty to think of the interests of the Soviet people, the interests of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. (Prolonged applause.) All the more since we are firmly convinced that the interests of the U.S.S.R. coincide with the fundamental interests of the peoples of other countries. (Applause.)

But that is only one side of the matter.

Something else had to happen besides this before a Soviet- German pact of non-aggression could come into existence. It was necessary that the foreign policy of Germany should take a turn towards friendly relations with the Soviet Union. Only when this second condition was fulfilled, only when it became clear that the German government desired to change its foreign policy and secure an improvement of relations with the U.S.S.R., was the basis found for the conclusion of a Soviet- German pact of non-aggression."

Molotov’s Statement in the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. on the Ratification of the Soviet-German Pact of Non-Aggression

And further: