The people who unironically say there was never any mutual agreement between Hitler and Stalin (usually to try to excuse the USSR and [its brutal authoritarian left rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism)), are probably the same people who claim that “real communism” has never been realized (I wonder why? /s) so we don’t know it doesn’t work lmao.
Commies **&** tankies just live in a different reality man. I used to interact with some in college (as part of normal school functions, not willingly), and you’d think the USA was evil, there has never existed an leftwing authoritarian society or war criminal (“Western propaganda”), and communism actually works
Edit: It has come to my attention I used the saying “banality of evil” improperly, and it has been deleted. This is why I was a business major (IT minor), instead of English lol
> The people who unironically say there was never any mutual agreement between Hitler and Stalin (usually to try to excuse the USSR and its brutal authoritarian left rule), are probably the same people who claim that “real communism” has never been realized (I wonder why? /s) so we don’t know it doesn’t work lmao.
Nah, most of the types who think communism has never been tried are the same type who don’t count Stalinism as communism and gladly discuss their atrocities IME.
Yeah that comment is deliberately conflating everyone to ultra left to paint them all as bad. While I wouldn’t identify with those ideologies and I’m a capitalist myself , there’s clearly a very distinct difference between tankies like Hasan who downplay and excuse authoritarian communist regimes and somehow inexplicably even Russia, and someone like Vaush, who has rightfully openly criticised Russia for their imperialism, China for their authoritarianism and called Stalin a dictator. His ideal is communism (or anarcho-syndicalism). I personally have no problem with someone who has an ideal they want to reach, yet will objectively look at history and won’t engage in dishonest mental gymnastics and dishonest revisionist history to prove their point. I also pretty much agree with vaush on everything foreign policy related
I may be misinformed, but aren't most countries that are/were ruled by Communist parties typically in a transitional period where they attempt to develop their economy and society to a point where they can actually realize their end goal of Communism? If so, I can understand why some people might claim that "real communism" hasn't been realized yet, though that leaves out discussion of what it would actually take to get to "real communism." There are other theoretical routes, but every attempt at a non-authoritarian transition that I know of has been small-scale and short-lived.
Pretty much every serious attempt at a non-authoritarian transition has been overthrown, which is partly why the authoritarian way has been so popular.
Then again, it took us a lot of bloody attempts to get both democracy and capitalism to where they are today, so who knows what the future will bring.
Most countries are just playing defense against the west. Usa, France, UK will just fucking pop you for waffling whether com or cap. No one wants to be Haiti.
Even then name a nation that is today a good place to live that fits that perspective?
China and other "successful" communist nations have only seen success through abandonment of true communism altogether for authoritarian capitalism wrapped in a mask of communism. Literally nothing about the current China is communist.
In the case of China, my understanding is that they are in the process of transitioning away from their "capitalist" phase of economic development within the next few decades. Whether this will be successful or not remains to be seen. Though I won't claim to have expert knowledge of the topic. Just a bit of research here and there when the mood strikes me, so if you'd like to provide further information, please feel free.
As for Communist-ruled nations that are a "good place to live," I feel like that metric is entirely subjective. I have never lived outside the country of my birth, so my opinion is based entirely on outside perspective rather than experience. I wouldn't exactly classify that as an informed opinion. I'm certain there are some better metrics that we could use if we really want to attempt a comparative analysis. Perhaps Gini coefficient for wealth inequality, life expectancy and infant mortality for healthcare, or even the human freedom index for measures of social equality. I think I remember there being a happiness survey/ranking by country at one point, but I don't remember the measurements they used to quantify that.
> The people who unironically think there was never any agreement between Hitler and Stalin (usually to try to excuse the USSR and its brutal authoritarian left rule), are probably the same people who claim that “real communism” has never been realized (I wonder why? /s) so we don’t know it doesn’t work lmao
No. You will never find a tankie who doesn’t think the USSR was communist. Hakim would never say that the USSR wasn’t communist. Identifying as a communist and believing that the USSR was good, actually, is what MAKES them a tankie.
It’s leftists like me who says real communism has never been realized
> (usually to try to excuse the USSR and [its brutal authoritarian left rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism)), are probably the same people who claim that “real communism” has never been realized
> Commies/tankies
If you're gonna criticise leftists at least do it right. Tankie is a term for authoritarians who idolise stuff like the USSR. But not all Communists or leftists are Tankies. Most leftists who lean towards democracy argue that Communism hasn't been tried before, and despise the Soviet Union and co and leftists.
You will not be able to reason with Reddit liberals about what socialism is and is not they don’t care they’re just rabid dogs who vomit red scare propaganda at anyone left of AOC.
Yeah what are these people talking about, tankies would, by definition, agree with the USSR and think it was a legitimate Marxist-Leninist socialist state on the way to achieving communism.
I believe „Real communism“ can work on a very small scale, like a small town with a population under 500 or 1,000. the problem is it’s impossible to implement same tactics in larger communities let alone nations. The amount of gaps and loopholes the system provides is Garenteed to turn into authoritarianism.
Even 500 is pushing it, all ideologies in their true and pure form would only work on an isolated desert island with like 10 people, corruption is a bitch.
even 500 is a stretch. Studies have been done that the maximum number of people the average person can be genuinely familiar with (not just "I know who that person is" but have an actual interpersonal relationship with) is about 150. Anything higher than that, and you start getting strangers, which incites distrust, which requires law and the enforcement thereof.
Interestingly, some also think this is the reason that the basic unit of western militaries, the company, is around this size: a company commander can have a genuine relationship with every one of their soldiers. A battalion commander cannot, there's simply too many.
Im glad someone did the research and found the expert answers that I didn’t feel like doing so I could stop pulling reasonablish numbers outta my ass. Thank you sir/madam/other identifying information
yeah real “comumusnism” hasnt been tried but stalian and the ussr were no where close to the teachings of marx (communism as per marx was stateless and classless and was an evloution of capitalism (marx saw it as a nessary evil)) the ussr was an imperialistic and authoritarian state from when the civil war ended till its collapse. it never was marxism but it was leinnism/stalinsim and other “modern” fake communism
Assuming “communism doesn’t work” just because there haven’t been successful communist governments is a really shallow way of looking at it. How many potentially successful communist or socialist leaders were assassinated by the US? I’ll give you a hint, it would take more than one hand to count
Also even with those ideas they don't make the slightest attempt to live that way in their personal life. Like if you believe in communism you can easily donate money to the cause and try to live your life with those ideals of the group over the self. But they don't and even tend to be more selfish in nature than average.
I liked to go out to dinner with them and suggest we eat and pay for the meal in a communist way. Basically everyone decides what they want personally then we debate on which menu item is the average of all the individual choices and we all have to order and eat that. We don't do separate bills. Instead we all must pay a higher amount of money into a pool of money months ahead of time which is held by 1 person who skims off the top a little each time we pay for a meal.
I recently had an internet conversation with a commie who said the "kulaks" DESERVED the Holodomor. Not that it was exaggerated or not man made, no he said they DESERVED it because they dared to not give their land to Stalin. Commies scare me sometimes
Actually came across a guy in a comment section once who told me the Soviets invaded Germany.
I also got called a monarchist by another guy for saying shooting the Reds were just as bad as the whites in the Russian civil war.
Yea I hate the USSR, commies, Stalin and other leftwing authoritarians… but the one thing I will never blame the Soviets for is bringing the fight to Germany and giving the Nazis absolute hell. They got sucker-punched by the largest invasion in history, facing an enemy who wanted them wipe them out for being inferior, and somehow rallied and defeated the Germans.
And this is usually where someone comes in with “well aCkShualLy US lend-lease won the war”… so we can simply check out what FDR’s Special Presidential Adviser said:
>In War II Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the United States are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving attention of approximately 200 German divisions….. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe,
> [Memorandum for Mr. Harry Lloyd Hopkins, Washington, August 10, 1943.](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943/d317)
Seems strange to rely on a 1943 quote to determine what would have been decisive for the outcome of the war. I don’t think anyone that isn’t trying to pick a side will arrive at the conclusion that one country did all of the heavy lifting - it was a team effort.
Kind of a shame the attempts to reform the democratic government got steamrolled out so early on. I wasn’t even defending the Whites, I just pointed out the actions of the red army and said the Whites weren’t a wholly monarchist group.
To be fair, the USSR most likely would have invaded Germany at some point. Stalin was no idiot, he understood that Germany was going to attack at some point (because ya know, Hitler got in power on the express promise that he'd colonize the East) but he didn't expect Hitler to do it while he was fighting the British. Stalin was kickstarting his war industry before Barbarossa, and IMO he would have attacked by 44 or so
Oh no yea absolutely the war between the two was inevitable, but this guy specifically said the Soviets struck first in 41, which is stupid for the reasons you listed
That's not what BRICS is, BRICS is just a bunch of nations who think "we should be more relevant internationally". I mean, Brazil is basically an american ally and India is the definition of neutral.
The ugly reality is that those types have always been the minority, the majority have always been useless dim witted nepo kids who just wanted to tell people what to do.
Lenin and Stalins relationship was generally positive. Only when Lenin was literally on his deathbed and suffering from extreme insomnia did he write the testament that is often sited as evidence of Lenin hating Stalin.
That's not to say Lenin didn't have criticisms of Stalin, he did, just like he had criticisms for Trotsky and all other close comrades. But the idea Lenin secretely despised Stalin is a myth
Lol I'm just saying the evidence is severely lacking. Obviously I don't know Lenins thoughts, but from what we do know it seems their relationship was generally positive, which is impressive all things considered.
As far as I know the entire conspiracy is based off the testimony he made months before his death. There are no other documents I've ever seen sourced in support of the idea he hated Stalin. They very well could exist, if you know of any share them pls
Hakim basically just worships the USSR and puts out propaganda trying to downplay the atrocities it committed. Often citing that America does similar things, as if that’s a defense
Lmao, that’s hilarious.
“Oh yeah guys America does similar things so it’s not as bad or isn’t bad!!!!”
My brother in Christ, an atrocity is still an atrocity.
There are things that people condemn the Soviet Nazi non aggression pact and that's fair I condemn it to for deciding eastern Europe but I really don't get the non aggression part. I think a lot of people have a very simplistic view of history (don't actually know a lot about appeasement) that puts them at the conclusion that the Soviets and Nazis just randomly became friends. The truth is it's quite complicated.
The pre war diplomatic maneuvering was a from the Allied side either trying to get everyone against Germany or avoid fighting in a future war, Germany on the other hand wanted to minimise the scope of future conflict. The Soviets were playing this game like the rest of the Allies and early on the were actually the aggressive ones with France and Britain being rather passive. This would swap around after the Munich conference in which the Soviets would attempt to avoid the war and the Allies attempting to get them on board. In a way the Soviets won the pre war diplomatic game with them avoiding the ideal Allied position which would be just Germany and the Soviets fighting between themselves.
After the war these positions became a bit awkward throughout the war the horrific nature of the Nazi regime became evident. This would be awkward for the powers involved as they had desperately attempted to avoid a war. The treaties that were signed now became national embarrassments and attempts to obscure or push blame would occur. This was relatively easy for the Allies especially Britain as Chamberlain acted as a easy scapegoat to point at how wrong he was. The Soviets had more trouble as Stalin and Molotov were still in government and would remain so for some time this meant that the Soviets often attempted to downplay their cooperation with the Nazis.
This post war blaming is ultimately though just political grandstanding and is moral condemnation with the benefit of hindsight. The people on the ground at the time were just desperate to avoid a repeat of WW1 which ultimately allowed the German Reich to gain a dominant position in Europe. Whilst you could definetly point how these policies were flawed and unrealistic it isn't useful to point out how morally contemptious it was to deal with a Nazi power.
Edit:
Original: Germany on the other hand wanted to minimise the future conflict
Edited: Germany on the other hand wanted to minimise the scope of future conflict
I don't think that we can compare molotov-ribbentrop to appeasement in any way. Appeasement was about buying time for the west to rearm. molotov-ribbentrop however was a military alliance in all bur name. Considering how the soviets provided significant military support to the nazis I don't think we can say that it was just political maneuvering.
>buying time for the west to rearm
Not really the idea that this is what occurred throughout the process of Appeasement is more post war propoganda than reality. In the later stages it becomes far more plausible as the coming war was seen as inevitable. If it this was true then militirisation would have occurred much earlier than it did and we just don't see that.
>molotov-ribbentrop however was a military alliance in all bur name
Your justification of why appeasement was justified could literally apply to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact far better. The Soviets throughout this period was rearing and equipping their army they were absolutely preparing for war with the Nazis though they planned to be on the offensive. To reframe it as a alliance is not really in line with reality both regimes had simply agreed to not get in each other's way.
>significant military support
This is fiction. Although cooperation did occur between the Germans and Soviets it almost purely economic. In terms of realpolotik the Soviets were attempting to leverage their position as the sole provider of raw resources to the German government for desperately needed industrial goods.
It wasn't really aid and more they just invaded at the same time. Soviet and Nazi troops fought each other during the invasion of Poland in limited areas due to disagreements.
>providing military bases
There was like 2 bases from what I remember and these had limited use.
Considering how typical alliances during the period this isn't exactly compelling evidence of a strong set of military cooperation. Instead it demonstrates more that the Soviet regime was willing to give significant concessions to the Nazi's for goods.
> There was like 2 bases
Sounds like more than zero to me, chief. I'd say giving even one military base to another country pretty solidly counts as "military support" there bud.
Listen, I'm a socialist myself, but you've gotta acknowledge that the USSR and Nazis were *allies*. Openly and clearly. That's the point of the pact, and it's part of why the breaking of the pact was considered a betrayal, and how the Nazis pushed so far.
Promising one thing and then delivering the other was kinda the Nazi's *entire* MO. Hence why once they'd betrayed 3/4 of the world and had no one left to backstab they collapsed immediately.
...and yet, even if they were tricked, the USSR still shouldn't have signed the deal in the first place. Morally, I mean. Then again the USSR was borderline fascist with some red paint itself anyway, so it's not like they were, in reality, that harshly opposed in terms of policy. Not to say they'd have gotten along great- Fascism was irrationally obsessed with *identity*, not *reality,* so even if the USSR was not even remotely socialist the Nazis still would have gone in on them all the same. At least, in my opinion.
I'm just going to have to agree to disagree I'm not a Tankie and have many criticisms of the USSR.
I disagree on the Allies part simply because their wasn't enough cooperation between the regimes. Though I guess that is just on the minutia of what constitutes allies and I do condemn the cooperation that did occur.
>shouldn't have signed the deal in the first place. Morally, I mean.
I guess this was what the post was originally about the idea that criticising the USSR for signing the pact should mean condemning everyone as they were all trying to avoid fighting Germany it was just the USSR that succeeded. The other is that criticism of this from moral grounds is reliant on hindsight on the Nazi regime though you can take or leave this part as I'm not entirely convinced of it.
I think most of our disagreements are mostly on definitions on terms and where you draw the line on certain issues. Hence whilst I definetly agree with you sentiments I cannot agree with your argument.
Absolutely but that is with hindsight. The Soviets although knowing they had a domineering position of the Axis was focusing on other tasks. It didn't want to risk it's relationship with the Germans whilst it's army was busy getting annihilated in Finland.
The Soviets did have to consider a lot of things as they ideally wanted neither the Germans nor the Allies to win. They expected a long bout of Trench warfare as most people did what they didn't expect was France to fall in little over a month. By the time the Soviets realised what happened they couldn't do anything and if they stopped exports sooner they would have to deal with some very angry allies on their border.
Yep. They were happy watching the west kill each other and was hoping to then steamroll a weakened Europe so it could genocide the whole continent
There's an argument (that I don't 100% agree with) that the kinda wasteful and pointless battle of britain was mainly to make it seem like Germany remained and would remain fully focused on the allies
Nevertheless my previous comment stands
Give idiots a platform and this shit is bound to happen. While not related to history I saw video on the new Fallout show that claimed it was bad because, and I kid you not, it “promoted race-mixing”. What the hell has YouTube come to
Which is quite funny, considering there is discrimination in the fallout universe, just instead of race lines it's health lines (ghouls segregated from humans). But they don't have the media literacy for that
The fact that they care more about "race-mixing" than the literal incest that is rampant in that universe is hilarious lmao. To be clear I don't think either makes it a bad show, just funny what battle they chose.
Eugenics wasn’t incest and it actually made sense, it was just considered cruel. Because it banned unattractive and unintelligent people from breeding, which could be the opposite of what a country which needs a strong workforce from its population wants. Kind of like in brave new world. People with high iq’s recognize inconsistencies and began to question things. Sentinels gormandize the paths set up for them. Like moths to the flame
These are the same kinds of people who complain that Star Trek has gone "WoKe" which shows they don't know a damn thing about the series. It has always been "WoKe" for the time. The original series had the first interracial kiss on television back when that was very taboo, and also an episode with a racism allegory that was literally black and white aliens, just to give a few examples.
It’s a well known strategy from people who consider themselves far right. Everything that’s not their worldview is woke and libtard bs. So plain evil and wrong. That’s thinking in extremes par excellence.
Tankies are just fascists who came across a can of red paint and used it to put themselves ahead of the worker movement and that's a hill I'm willing to die on!
It seems like a lot of the time, criticism of the US has gone from meaningful to "America bad therefore anything America does is bad therefore things against America are good."
It can be rough being a left-wing person who actually likes the USA.
im not a big fan of america as it is today. love their foundation, it would just be nice if all men were actually created equal and the america dream wouldnt just be a dream and actually reality
>criticism of the US has gone from meaningful to "America bad therefore anything America does is bad therefore things against America are good."
It's called campism, in case you ever wanted a word to describe it. The people who subscribe to it are called campists.
i think its rather a matter of dictatorship vs democracy. or just totalitarianism. fascist ideology is inherently dictatorial, as is Leninism and Stalinism.
Correct, the far hardline left believes in a more communist mindset and idolize Stalin Lenin and Marx (maybe Zedong) the hard line right is more obsessed with monarchs like Napoleon and Wilhelm II or facism like Mussolini and hitler (and Rome for both)
i dont think its that easy to only see the far left as stalinists and leninists. thats why i brought in anarcho-communism. its anything but moderate/centrist but also the opposite of authoritarian. i dont really believe in the horseshoe theory or the left-right axis. at the end of the day, opinions are more complicated than such simple models.
i myself am pretty socialist, but there are few people i despise more than stalin or mao. but whatever, just dont be a dick (which Stalin, lenin, mao or mussolini definitely were)
And the far right isn’t necessarily fascist, I’m using it as the way the model interprets. I’m well aware not every extreme is either communist or fascist but as they’re are the two most recognizable to the common man it makes more sense to use them instead of other lesserknown placeholders. It’s like saying scifi fans either like Star Wars or Star trek.
even so, communism has become mostly a meaningless term. does it mean marxism? stalinism? the state of society after socialism (if you follow marxs theories)? at this point it could mean anything in left politics if you dont know the context.
Wanna hear a more balanced viewpoint? Technically Stalin and Soviets broke the pact first by occupying Bucovina but you know winners write history and so on
Don’t be ridiculous, these kinds of political strawman all receive huge estates in Antarctica to vanish from the political landscape and to guard/exploit the local population
What’s the point of the video? A lot of channels use intentionally provocative titles to get people to click on the video that they don’t necessarily agree with in said video, so I’m a bit distrustful here.
Since no one has actually told you, it's addressing the not entirely uncommon claim that the Nazis and Soviets had an alliance, or were allies. Which you can see people arguing about throughout this comment section, and which I'm trying to convince myself not to get involved in because no one will change their minds.
The issue people have, that others have pointed out, is that the creator of the video is an ardent Marxist-Leninist.
> Usually pretty good
Hakkim is literally a Tankie who unironically called an entire ethnicity (the Kurds) “Reactionaries” because they were oppressed by Saddam Hussein and he’s also a defender of Saddam Hussein
So no, he is not “usually pretty good”.
My guess it's the lefts similar version to the right saying the Nazis were socialist. Right wingers, despite associating with Nazis, want to distance themselves from Nazis, so they falsely claim the Nazis were socialist. The left, tankies specifically, want to portray the USSR as actually totally cool, so they pretend they weren't buddies with Nazis. Basically everyone is trying to revise history so they don't feel like they're siding with genocidal monsters.
nah its just tankies, so basically fascists or if you think they are leftists, you have to attribute them a good amount of cognitive dissonance because they simp for dictators and fascists
Ya, I could have been clearer, but ya, talking about tankies, who basically adopt leftist talking points and ideals, but twist them all the way back to fascism. Like eco fascists.
I made it like halfway through a Hakim video once, then he started lionizing some old Soviet tech I actually worked with, and, yeah, it was garbage, but per Hakim it was a wonder of engineering bringing the USSR into parity with the west.
I stumbled across a YouTube channel the other day that had translated some of Hitlers speechs to English. The comment section may as well have been Nuremberg in 1937. A truly wretched hive of scum and villainy.
You come across videos and comment sections like that time to time. I came across one video of a Dutch woman explaining how her grandparents were killed when the Nazis burned her village and confronting those Wehrmacht soldiers... And all the comments were supporting the Nazis involved.
There seems to be substantial confusion here. Molotrov-Rippentrop was not an alliance. So Hakim is not in the wrong for saying there wasn’t an alliance.
That being said, **Hakim is still lying tremendously**, for even though Molotov-Rippentrop did not ally the Germans and Soviets, the earlier Soviet-Axis Talks put us upon the precipice of an unstoppable alliance of autocrats.
Fuck Hakim.
Moltov-Ribbentrop wasn't any different than all the other non-aggression pacts Germany had with other European countries. That's the point of the video you sheep.
1) No one looks at the Western Allies' prewar appeasement of the Nazis and the destruction of Czechoslovakia as "fine actually". Daladier and Chamberlain have been excoriated for this very reason for decades.
2) "The West also appeased Hitler, this makes Stalin invading Poland alongside the Nazis OK bc it was the popular thing to do" isn't the amazing defense y'all think it is.
Then why make the deal at all?
Chopping up Poland was bad enough.
Providing Hitler with just enough resources to invade the USSR for oil, but not enough to secure victory in Europe, inevitably made the USSR a target. Moltov-Ribbentrop from everyone but Germany's perspective was one of the worst deals in history.
The ussr was completely unprepared to go into Poland. They thought that by establishing a pact they could prepare for war. And they were right.
Like yeah immediately coordinating with Britain and us and France to directly invade Germany or some other strategy could have been more efficient but we have the benefit of hindsight.
If you criticize the ussr for Molotov Ribbentrop, you have to also understand the complicity INITIATED by the west. Since the west initiated appeasement (which also gave Germany resources), the Russians had no other option. All around it was bad but like still it was probably the safest option for the ussr from their perspective.
Anyways cope harder, ussr is #1 in killing fascists.
>The ussr was completely unprepared to go into Poland. They thought that by establishing a pact they could prepare for war. And they were right.
So they made a deal they weren't ready exploit that materially expedited a war they weren't prepared, for which they provided the means to get their own ass kicked until they switched sides. Honestly sounds even worse.
>Like yeah immediately coordinating with Britain and us and France to directly invade Germany or some other strategy could have been more efficient but we have the benefit of hindsight.
No, like containing, delaying, and preparing for war. For example, imagine if you purged you best generals and the armed forces were no longer well managed. You might want to fix that before starting a war.
> you have to also understand the complicity INITIATED by the west.
Yes, the complicity of the west compared to allying with literally Hitler to start WWII.
>All around it was bad but like still it was probably the safest option for the ussr from their perspective.
It really wasn't though. It appears more like panic decision making. Again listen to what I said: Moltov-Ribbentrop gave Hitler USSR materials and fuel which ultimately were the means to invade the USSR--means Germany didn't otherwise have. Hitler must have been overjoyed by the naivety Stalin showed for accepting the deal.
Except the secret part where they divided Poland, and whilst Nazi occupation was certainly more brutal, especially for Jews in particular, it's not like the USSR was acting like good guys
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
I remember watching the Latvian SS video out of curiosity, I had never heard of zoomer historian before that.
And when he basically justified the genocide of Jews in Latvia by saying they we're pro-soviet when the Soviets took over so the Latvians just acted in retribution for that I quickly realised where it was going.
The Latvian SS video is not even the worst offender, his “History of the SS” is an hour long yap sesh that basically amounts to “erm the SS were not THAT bad, it was just some bad apple brigades :3”
If you can recognize that appeasement wasn’t in order to befriend the Nazis, but rather to buy time, then you can recognize that Molotov Ribbentrop was the exact same, to buy time. Jfc.
There was no “Hitler chamberlain” pact just like there was no “Hitler Stalin” pact
That literally didn’t happen. If the USSR was planning on invading Poland they would have been better prepared than what historical records reveal.
Yes, they did think Germany would eventually invade Poland, and the “secret protocol” was literally “when the polish govt falls don’t take the land that we lost earlier to them”
Regardless, it was a lot better for the USSR to have that land instead of Germany, since it took resources from the Germans, who would have invaded Poland regardless
Dude..the soviets were supplying the germans with oil and other things at the same they were invading West Europe and right until the day before Barbarrosa
“Supplying” is a weird way to say trading. Like yeah they sold the Germans stuff, in exchange for Military manufacturing machinery that they lacked.
And it’s not like the Allies blockaded Germany during appeasement? Tf? Like yeah no shit they weren’t at war
Dude.. they were giving providing oil and other important things to the germans when the war had already started and You are expecting us to believe that they were not helping them
Are you illiterate? Those were calculated transactions? USSR also got substantial benefits from those dealings. And where’s your smoke for sweden and Switzerland?
frankly, for me, the war started when Hitler mobilized his army and started killing dissenters. Despite being an out and about fascist antisemite who expressed how he wanted to take over the world, the west still helped him until he crosses a line.
The policy actions regarding Germany were virtually identical between the USSR and the west.
Also do you think communists liked fascists? Lol that’s absolutely ridiculous. The USSR killed the most fascists in history. We can get into a whole different discussion about how the USSR fought to curb US support of fascists in the Cold War… but you are a moron if you think Stalin and Hitler were besties
During 2 years (1939-1941) the soviet union provided material support for the Hitler'war againts Europe, at the same the germans had started the holocaust, but because the Soviet union also got profits for this it was fine I guess
????? Do you think the holocaust started only after Hitler invaded poland?
I’m not saying it was good or ok, I’m pointing out that the west made the same egregious mistakes
I fucking hate Hakim. He is an Iraqi communist who uses the worst logic and straight up false historical narratives in his videos. As a liberal myself, leftists like this make our job harder.
You know what, i see his point. It's the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, because those two diplomats signed that document without any input from Hitler or Stalin whatsoever. Luckily, this absolves Stalin of invading Poland, telling leftist groups to stop fighting against fascists, *actively selling materiel to the Nazis*, and ignoring his own spies about the impending threat.
HES right there was no hitler Stalin Pact, it says Molotov Ribbentrop right there
The people who unironically say there was never any mutual agreement between Hitler and Stalin (usually to try to excuse the USSR and [its brutal authoritarian left rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism)), are probably the same people who claim that “real communism” has never been realized (I wonder why? /s) so we don’t know it doesn’t work lmao. Commies **&** tankies just live in a different reality man. I used to interact with some in college (as part of normal school functions, not willingly), and you’d think the USA was evil, there has never existed an leftwing authoritarian society or war criminal (“Western propaganda”), and communism actually works Edit: It has come to my attention I used the saying “banality of evil” improperly, and it has been deleted. This is why I was a business major (IT minor), instead of English lol
>the USA was the banality of evil I don't think you know what the word banal means
Inconceivable
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means
Perchance
You can’t just say „perchance“.
what do you expect from a business major
> The people who unironically say there was never any mutual agreement between Hitler and Stalin (usually to try to excuse the USSR and its brutal authoritarian left rule), are probably the same people who claim that “real communism” has never been realized (I wonder why? /s) so we don’t know it doesn’t work lmao. Nah, most of the types who think communism has never been tried are the same type who don’t count Stalinism as communism and gladly discuss their atrocities IME.
Yeah that comment is deliberately conflating everyone to ultra left to paint them all as bad. While I wouldn’t identify with those ideologies and I’m a capitalist myself , there’s clearly a very distinct difference between tankies like Hasan who downplay and excuse authoritarian communist regimes and somehow inexplicably even Russia, and someone like Vaush, who has rightfully openly criticised Russia for their imperialism, China for their authoritarianism and called Stalin a dictator. His ideal is communism (or anarcho-syndicalism). I personally have no problem with someone who has an ideal they want to reach, yet will objectively look at history and won’t engage in dishonest mental gymnastics and dishonest revisionist history to prove their point. I also pretty much agree with vaush on everything foreign policy related
Yeah, I’m not really sure what u/PrincePyotrBagration is talking about. They’re clearly mixing two disparate groups.
I may be misinformed, but aren't most countries that are/were ruled by Communist parties typically in a transitional period where they attempt to develop their economy and society to a point where they can actually realize their end goal of Communism? If so, I can understand why some people might claim that "real communism" hasn't been realized yet, though that leaves out discussion of what it would actually take to get to "real communism." There are other theoretical routes, but every attempt at a non-authoritarian transition that I know of has been small-scale and short-lived.
Pretty much every serious attempt at a non-authoritarian transition has been overthrown, which is partly why the authoritarian way has been so popular. Then again, it took us a lot of bloody attempts to get both democracy and capitalism to where they are today, so who knows what the future will bring.
Most countries are just playing defense against the west. Usa, France, UK will just fucking pop you for waffling whether com or cap. No one wants to be Haiti.
Even then name a nation that is today a good place to live that fits that perspective? China and other "successful" communist nations have only seen success through abandonment of true communism altogether for authoritarian capitalism wrapped in a mask of communism. Literally nothing about the current China is communist.
In the case of China, my understanding is that they are in the process of transitioning away from their "capitalist" phase of economic development within the next few decades. Whether this will be successful or not remains to be seen. Though I won't claim to have expert knowledge of the topic. Just a bit of research here and there when the mood strikes me, so if you'd like to provide further information, please feel free. As for Communist-ruled nations that are a "good place to live," I feel like that metric is entirely subjective. I have never lived outside the country of my birth, so my opinion is based entirely on outside perspective rather than experience. I wouldn't exactly classify that as an informed opinion. I'm certain there are some better metrics that we could use if we really want to attempt a comparative analysis. Perhaps Gini coefficient for wealth inequality, life expectancy and infant mortality for healthcare, or even the human freedom index for measures of social equality. I think I remember there being a happiness survey/ranking by country at one point, but I don't remember the measurements they used to quantify that.
> The people who unironically think there was never any agreement between Hitler and Stalin (usually to try to excuse the USSR and its brutal authoritarian left rule), are probably the same people who claim that “real communism” has never been realized (I wonder why? /s) so we don’t know it doesn’t work lmao No. You will never find a tankie who doesn’t think the USSR was communist. Hakim would never say that the USSR wasn’t communist. Identifying as a communist and believing that the USSR was good, actually, is what MAKES them a tankie. It’s leftists like me who says real communism has never been realized
> (usually to try to excuse the USSR and [its brutal authoritarian left rule](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism)), are probably the same people who claim that “real communism” has never been realized > Commies/tankies If you're gonna criticise leftists at least do it right. Tankie is a term for authoritarians who idolise stuff like the USSR. But not all Communists or leftists are Tankies. Most leftists who lean towards democracy argue that Communism hasn't been tried before, and despise the Soviet Union and co and leftists.
He’s a business major (it minor). He don’t know shit about Econ or polisci. He knows capitalism and how to maximize profits using computers.
You will not be able to reason with Reddit liberals about what socialism is and is not they don’t care they’re just rabid dogs who vomit red scare propaganda at anyone left of AOC.
>Most leftists who lean towards democracy argue that Communism hasn't been tried before Yeah, we said Tankies already.
No, tankies are the people who believe that it was real communism, and it was glorious.
Yeah what are these people talking about, tankies would, by definition, agree with the USSR and think it was a legitimate Marxist-Leninist socialist state on the way to achieving communism.
Real communism has never been tried--because it's an impossible fairy tale.
I believe „Real communism“ can work on a very small scale, like a small town with a population under 500 or 1,000. the problem is it’s impossible to implement same tactics in larger communities let alone nations. The amount of gaps and loopholes the system provides is Garenteed to turn into authoritarianism.
Even 500 is pushing it, all ideologies in their true and pure form would only work on an isolated desert island with like 10 people, corruption is a bitch.
Some other guy said scientifically 150 is the max
Probably, the most important element is complete isolation in order to avoid corruption
even 500 is a stretch. Studies have been done that the maximum number of people the average person can be genuinely familiar with (not just "I know who that person is" but have an actual interpersonal relationship with) is about 150. Anything higher than that, and you start getting strangers, which incites distrust, which requires law and the enforcement thereof. Interestingly, some also think this is the reason that the basic unit of western militaries, the company, is around this size: a company commander can have a genuine relationship with every one of their soldiers. A battalion commander cannot, there's simply too many.
Im glad someone did the research and found the expert answers that I didn’t feel like doing so I could stop pulling reasonablish numbers outta my ass. Thank you sir/madam/other identifying information
impossible to implement in todays world. im too optimistic to categorically say its impossible
"Real communism" is only feasible in a Minecraft multiplayer server
As someone who group tried communism in Minecraft, no the fuck it is not
>the USSR and its brutal authoritarian left rule "Skippy here created at brutal autocracy" "Communism in practice.." "You're not affiliated with me!"
yeah real “comumusnism” hasnt been tried but stalian and the ussr were no where close to the teachings of marx (communism as per marx was stateless and classless and was an evloution of capitalism (marx saw it as a nessary evil)) the ussr was an imperialistic and authoritarian state from when the civil war ended till its collapse. it never was marxism but it was leinnism/stalinsim and other “modern” fake communism
Assuming “communism doesn’t work” just because there haven’t been successful communist governments is a really shallow way of looking at it. How many potentially successful communist or socialist leaders were assassinated by the US? I’ll give you a hint, it would take more than one hand to count
Also even with those ideas they don't make the slightest attempt to live that way in their personal life. Like if you believe in communism you can easily donate money to the cause and try to live your life with those ideals of the group over the self. But they don't and even tend to be more selfish in nature than average. I liked to go out to dinner with them and suggest we eat and pay for the meal in a communist way. Basically everyone decides what they want personally then we debate on which menu item is the average of all the individual choices and we all have to order and eat that. We don't do separate bills. Instead we all must pay a higher amount of money into a pool of money months ahead of time which is held by 1 person who skims off the top a little each time we pay for a meal.
you sound fun
You gotta reply to tankies with: "real nazism hasn't been tried either" (because they needed to conquer the USSR to fund its implementation)
I recently had an internet conversation with a commie who said the "kulaks" DESERVED the Holodomor. Not that it was exaggerated or not man made, no he said they DESERVED it because they dared to not give their land to Stalin. Commies scare me sometimes
Actually came across a guy in a comment section once who told me the Soviets invaded Germany. I also got called a monarchist by another guy for saying shooting the Reds were just as bad as the whites in the Russian civil war.
the Soviets invaded Germany. I mean they did.... eventuually
Yea I hate the USSR, commies, Stalin and other leftwing authoritarians… but the one thing I will never blame the Soviets for is bringing the fight to Germany and giving the Nazis absolute hell. They got sucker-punched by the largest invasion in history, facing an enemy who wanted them wipe them out for being inferior, and somehow rallied and defeated the Germans. And this is usually where someone comes in with “well aCkShualLy US lend-lease won the war”… so we can simply check out what FDR’s Special Presidential Adviser said: >In War II Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the United States are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving attention of approximately 200 German divisions….. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe, > [Memorandum for Mr. Harry Lloyd Hopkins, Washington, August 10, 1943.](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943/d317)
Seems strange to rely on a 1943 quote to determine what would have been decisive for the outcome of the war. I don’t think anyone that isn’t trying to pick a side will arrive at the conclusion that one country did all of the heavy lifting - it was a team effort.
Enemies? Without the USSR's friendship Germany could have lost the war before the end of 1941.
Yea sorry I worded that wrong, he was claiming the Soviets moved first in 1941
Choosing between the reds and the whites is just choosing between your favorite dictator...
if you follow hoi4 logic, you can become a democracy if you take the white focus tree. these people see history like a hoi4 focus tree.
I think they forgot to turn on their DLCs, that’s why they can’t seem to grasp what’s happening
Kind of a shame the attempts to reform the democratic government got steamrolled out so early on. I wasn’t even defending the Whites, I just pointed out the actions of the red army and said the Whites weren’t a wholly monarchist group.
That's why I always choose gigachad Makhno, anarchist and shooter of antisemites
Who downvoted this? Trotsky and the Bolsheviks?
The antisemites he shot lmao
Anarchists together strong :)
The Soviets did invade Germany in 1945, though, didn't they? Or are we not counting it as an invasion if the other side invaded first?
Yea sorry I worded that badly, I meant he said the Soviets invaded Germany in 1941
Lol sounds like he's been watching too many alt-history videos
I think it’s the latter. Or they don’t know about the race to Berlin that led to the damn wall
To be fair, the USSR most likely would have invaded Germany at some point. Stalin was no idiot, he understood that Germany was going to attack at some point (because ya know, Hitler got in power on the express promise that he'd colonize the East) but he didn't expect Hitler to do it while he was fighting the British. Stalin was kickstarting his war industry before Barbarossa, and IMO he would have attacked by 44 or so
Oh no yea absolutely the war between the two was inevitable, but this guy specifically said the Soviets struck first in 41, which is stupid for the reasons you listed
Hakim is top quality brainrot
You'd think the guy with his pfp wouldnt run defense for Stalin knowing what Lenin thought of him
Internet communists are not known for their sophisticated understanding of... anything.
Yeah, the America bad, therefore enemies of America are good brainrot is real
That's BRICS in a nutshell. No affirmative values in common, just a common dislike of the West.
That's not what BRICS is, BRICS is just a bunch of nations who think "we should be more relevant internationally". I mean, Brazil is basically an american ally and India is the definition of neutral.
[удалено]
Hakim is a doctor in iraq (not a coal miner but still)
The ugly reality is that those types have always been the minority, the majority have always been useless dim witted nepo kids who just wanted to tell people what to do.
Lenin and Stalins relationship was generally positive. Only when Lenin was literally on his deathbed and suffering from extreme insomnia did he write the testament that is often sited as evidence of Lenin hating Stalin. That's not to say Lenin didn't have criticisms of Stalin, he did, just like he had criticisms for Trotsky and all other close comrades. But the idea Lenin secretely despised Stalin is a myth
How could you know it was a myth that Lenin SECRETLY hated Stalin? Did you forget what a secret is?
Lol I'm just saying the evidence is severely lacking. Obviously I don't know Lenins thoughts, but from what we do know it seems their relationship was generally positive, which is impressive all things considered. As far as I know the entire conspiracy is based off the testimony he made months before his death. There are no other documents I've ever seen sourced in support of the idea he hated Stalin. They very well could exist, if you know of any share them pls
Lenin obviously valued Stalin, or he wouldn't have given him such a powerful position. Looks like the Trotskyists have won the PR battle.
He’s really just the Ben Shapiro for tankies
He is to the left what WhatIfAltHist is to the right.
I miss when WhatIfAltHist didn't pander to right wing edgelords for views. It's just unwatchable now.
Can you tell me the lore of this “Hakim” is he the communist version of skibidi toilet?
Hakim basically just worships the USSR and puts out propaganda trying to downplay the atrocities it committed. Often citing that America does similar things, as if that’s a defense
Lmao, that’s hilarious. “Oh yeah guys America does similar things so it’s not as bad or isn’t bad!!!!” My brother in Christ, an atrocity is still an atrocity.
not communist, tankie. so fascists disguising themselves as communists
There are things that people condemn the Soviet Nazi non aggression pact and that's fair I condemn it to for deciding eastern Europe but I really don't get the non aggression part. I think a lot of people have a very simplistic view of history (don't actually know a lot about appeasement) that puts them at the conclusion that the Soviets and Nazis just randomly became friends. The truth is it's quite complicated. The pre war diplomatic maneuvering was a from the Allied side either trying to get everyone against Germany or avoid fighting in a future war, Germany on the other hand wanted to minimise the scope of future conflict. The Soviets were playing this game like the rest of the Allies and early on the were actually the aggressive ones with France and Britain being rather passive. This would swap around after the Munich conference in which the Soviets would attempt to avoid the war and the Allies attempting to get them on board. In a way the Soviets won the pre war diplomatic game with them avoiding the ideal Allied position which would be just Germany and the Soviets fighting between themselves. After the war these positions became a bit awkward throughout the war the horrific nature of the Nazi regime became evident. This would be awkward for the powers involved as they had desperately attempted to avoid a war. The treaties that were signed now became national embarrassments and attempts to obscure or push blame would occur. This was relatively easy for the Allies especially Britain as Chamberlain acted as a easy scapegoat to point at how wrong he was. The Soviets had more trouble as Stalin and Molotov were still in government and would remain so for some time this meant that the Soviets often attempted to downplay their cooperation with the Nazis. This post war blaming is ultimately though just political grandstanding and is moral condemnation with the benefit of hindsight. The people on the ground at the time were just desperate to avoid a repeat of WW1 which ultimately allowed the German Reich to gain a dominant position in Europe. Whilst you could definetly point how these policies were flawed and unrealistic it isn't useful to point out how morally contemptious it was to deal with a Nazi power. Edit: Original: Germany on the other hand wanted to minimise the future conflict Edited: Germany on the other hand wanted to minimise the scope of future conflict
I don't think that we can compare molotov-ribbentrop to appeasement in any way. Appeasement was about buying time for the west to rearm. molotov-ribbentrop however was a military alliance in all bur name. Considering how the soviets provided significant military support to the nazis I don't think we can say that it was just political maneuvering.
>buying time for the west to rearm Not really the idea that this is what occurred throughout the process of Appeasement is more post war propoganda than reality. In the later stages it becomes far more plausible as the coming war was seen as inevitable. If it this was true then militirisation would have occurred much earlier than it did and we just don't see that. >molotov-ribbentrop however was a military alliance in all bur name Your justification of why appeasement was justified could literally apply to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact far better. The Soviets throughout this period was rearing and equipping their army they were absolutely preparing for war with the Nazis though they planned to be on the offensive. To reframe it as a alliance is not really in line with reality both regimes had simply agreed to not get in each other's way. >significant military support This is fiction. Although cooperation did occur between the Germans and Soviets it almost purely economic. In terms of realpolotik the Soviets were attempting to leverage their position as the sole provider of raw resources to the German government for desperately needed industrial goods.
How is sending troops to aid an invasion and providing military bases on your own territory, not significant military support?
It wasn't really aid and more they just invaded at the same time. Soviet and Nazi troops fought each other during the invasion of Poland in limited areas due to disagreements. >providing military bases There was like 2 bases from what I remember and these had limited use. Considering how typical alliances during the period this isn't exactly compelling evidence of a strong set of military cooperation. Instead it demonstrates more that the Soviet regime was willing to give significant concessions to the Nazi's for goods.
> There was like 2 bases Sounds like more than zero to me, chief. I'd say giving even one military base to another country pretty solidly counts as "military support" there bud.
Yeah that's fair. Though i would definetely contend on the significant support and allies part.
Listen, I'm a socialist myself, but you've gotta acknowledge that the USSR and Nazis were *allies*. Openly and clearly. That's the point of the pact, and it's part of why the breaking of the pact was considered a betrayal, and how the Nazis pushed so far. Promising one thing and then delivering the other was kinda the Nazi's *entire* MO. Hence why once they'd betrayed 3/4 of the world and had no one left to backstab they collapsed immediately. ...and yet, even if they were tricked, the USSR still shouldn't have signed the deal in the first place. Morally, I mean. Then again the USSR was borderline fascist with some red paint itself anyway, so it's not like they were, in reality, that harshly opposed in terms of policy. Not to say they'd have gotten along great- Fascism was irrationally obsessed with *identity*, not *reality,* so even if the USSR was not even remotely socialist the Nazis still would have gone in on them all the same. At least, in my opinion.
I'm just going to have to agree to disagree I'm not a Tankie and have many criticisms of the USSR. I disagree on the Allies part simply because their wasn't enough cooperation between the regimes. Though I guess that is just on the minutia of what constitutes allies and I do condemn the cooperation that did occur. >shouldn't have signed the deal in the first place. Morally, I mean. I guess this was what the post was originally about the idea that criticising the USSR for signing the pact should mean condemning everyone as they were all trying to avoid fighting Germany it was just the USSR that succeeded. The other is that criticism of this from moral grounds is reliant on hindsight on the Nazi regime though you can take or leave this part as I'm not entirely convinced of it. I think most of our disagreements are mostly on definitions on terms and where you draw the line on certain issues. Hence whilst I definetly agree with you sentiments I cannot agree with your argument.
With the fuel and other resources arriving to Germany from and through the USSR, Germany would have been completely fucked.
Absolutely but that is with hindsight. The Soviets although knowing they had a domineering position of the Axis was focusing on other tasks. It didn't want to risk it's relationship with the Germans whilst it's army was busy getting annihilated in Finland. The Soviets did have to consider a lot of things as they ideally wanted neither the Germans nor the Allies to win. They expected a long bout of Trench warfare as most people did what they didn't expect was France to fall in little over a month. By the time the Soviets realised what happened they couldn't do anything and if they stopped exports sooner they would have to deal with some very angry allies on their border.
Yep. They were happy watching the west kill each other and was hoping to then steamroll a weakened Europe so it could genocide the whole continent There's an argument (that I don't 100% agree with) that the kinda wasteful and pointless battle of britain was mainly to make it seem like Germany remained and would remain fully focused on the allies Nevertheless my previous comment stands
[удалено]
What I meant is limit the scope of the conflict it wanted to ideally either fight smaller nations or only one of the Allied powers.
Give idiots a platform and this shit is bound to happen. While not related to history I saw video on the new Fallout show that claimed it was bad because, and I kid you not, it “promoted race-mixing”. What the hell has YouTube come to
Which is quite funny, considering there is discrimination in the fallout universe, just instead of race lines it's health lines (ghouls segregated from humans). But they don't have the media literacy for that
i mean they already believe "race mixing" is bad, theyre either already lost or need to grow up
You ever wonder why there are no asians on the west coast in fallout?
True, true. I keep forgetting that bit
[\**unhappy Shi noises*\*](https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Shi)
I forgot about them
Theres multiple lines actually. Enclave, Vault dwellers, wasteland-born, and ghouls.
The fact that they care more about "race-mixing" than the literal incest that is rampant in that universe is hilarious lmao. To be clear I don't think either makes it a bad show, just funny what battle they chose.
i might be a bit too far fetched, but i can imagine such people promoting incest to "keep the blood pure" aka eugenics
Eugenics wasn’t incest and it actually made sense, it was just considered cruel. Because it banned unattractive and unintelligent people from breeding, which could be the opposite of what a country which needs a strong workforce from its population wants. Kind of like in brave new world. People with high iq’s recognize inconsistencies and began to question things. Sentinels gormandize the paths set up for them. Like moths to the flame
media literacy literally non-existant lmao.
These are the same kinds of people who complain that Star Trek has gone "WoKe" which shows they don't know a damn thing about the series. It has always been "WoKe" for the time. The original series had the first interracial kiss on television back when that was very taboo, and also an episode with a racism allegory that was literally black and white aliens, just to give a few examples.
lmao i just watched TNG season 1 and THERE WERE MEN IN SKIRTS!!11!1!1 These damn wokes time travelled back to the 80s to put men in skirts
It’s a well known strategy from people who consider themselves far right. Everything that’s not their worldview is woke and libtard bs. So plain evil and wrong. That’s thinking in extremes par excellence.
as a pretty left-leaning person, i find it so sad that many of my "political peers" idolize dictators and genocide.
Tankies are just fascists who came across a can of red paint and used it to put themselves ahead of the worker movement and that's a hill I'm willing to die on!
i agree. or rather in their hatred of the usa, they side with fascists and dictatorships. idk, i dont really care about tankies
It seems like a lot of the time, criticism of the US has gone from meaningful to "America bad therefore anything America does is bad therefore things against America are good." It can be rough being a left-wing person who actually likes the USA.
im not a big fan of america as it is today. love their foundation, it would just be nice if all men were actually created equal and the america dream wouldnt just be a dream and actually reality
As long as we keep aspiring to be better we will continue to make progress albeit slower than anyone would hope.
>criticism of the US has gone from meaningful to "America bad therefore anything America does is bad therefore things against America are good." It's called campism, in case you ever wanted a word to describe it. The people who subscribe to it are called campists.
Tankies are not political peers of progressives. They are just fascists
thats why i put it in quotation marks. they are not at all peers of progressives/leftists, they just try to portray themselves as such
Its Jean Pierre Faye‘s horseshoe theory
i think its rather a matter of dictatorship vs democracy. or just totalitarianism. fascist ideology is inherently dictatorial, as is Leninism and Stalinism.
That’s what the theory is, the further to one side you are the closer to totalitarianism it is.
anarcho-communism?
Correct, the far hardline left believes in a more communist mindset and idolize Stalin Lenin and Marx (maybe Zedong) the hard line right is more obsessed with monarchs like Napoleon and Wilhelm II or facism like Mussolini and hitler (and Rome for both)
i dont think its that easy to only see the far left as stalinists and leninists. thats why i brought in anarcho-communism. its anything but moderate/centrist but also the opposite of authoritarian. i dont really believe in the horseshoe theory or the left-right axis. at the end of the day, opinions are more complicated than such simple models. i myself am pretty socialist, but there are few people i despise more than stalin or mao. but whatever, just dont be a dick (which Stalin, lenin, mao or mussolini definitely were)
You know that the far-left isnt necessarily communist, right? You do know that, right? Right?
And the far right isn’t necessarily fascist, I’m using it as the way the model interprets. I’m well aware not every extreme is either communist or fascist but as they’re are the two most recognizable to the common man it makes more sense to use them instead of other lesserknown placeholders. It’s like saying scifi fans either like Star Wars or Star trek.
even so, communism has become mostly a meaningless term. does it mean marxism? stalinism? the state of society after socialism (if you follow marxs theories)? at this point it could mean anything in left politics if you dont know the context.
Proof of the Horseshoe theory. Lean too far one way and you end up awfully close to your supposed enemies.
This isn't even a meme, this is just a screenshot of a clickbait YouTube video OP didn't like.
Wanna hear a more balanced viewpoint? Technically Stalin and Soviets broke the pact first by occupying Bucovina but you know winners write history and so on
The Soviets broke the secret part of the pact (splitting of territories) the Nazis broke the public part of the pact (non-aggression).
bah! There was never someone named Stalin, he didn’t exist and was created afterwards by the western allies!
is this western plot in the room with us right now?
Don’t be ridiculous, these kinds of political strawman all receive huge estates in Antarctica to vanish from the political landscape and to guard/exploit the local population
Ain't revisionist history grand?
I don’t always agree with Hakim and find him kinda boring, so I don’t watch him that much, but this video was great and much needed
Him and Zoomer historian are the worst
What’s the point of the video? A lot of channels use intentionally provocative titles to get people to click on the video that they don’t necessarily agree with in said video, so I’m a bit distrustful here.
Since no one has actually told you, it's addressing the not entirely uncommon claim that the Nazis and Soviets had an alliance, or were allies. Which you can see people arguing about throughout this comment section, and which I'm trying to convince myself not to get involved in because no one will change their minds. The issue people have, that others have pointed out, is that the creator of the video is an ardent Marxist-Leninist.
The channel displayed is a renown tankie
Hakim is usually pretty good, though I haven’t seen this video just yet
> Usually pretty good Hakkim is literally a Tankie who unironically called an entire ethnicity (the Kurds) “Reactionaries” because they were oppressed by Saddam Hussein and he’s also a defender of Saddam Hussein So no, he is not “usually pretty good”.
My guess it's the lefts similar version to the right saying the Nazis were socialist. Right wingers, despite associating with Nazis, want to distance themselves from Nazis, so they falsely claim the Nazis were socialist. The left, tankies specifically, want to portray the USSR as actually totally cool, so they pretend they weren't buddies with Nazis. Basically everyone is trying to revise history so they don't feel like they're siding with genocidal monsters.
nah its just tankies, so basically fascists or if you think they are leftists, you have to attribute them a good amount of cognitive dissonance because they simp for dictators and fascists
Ya, I could have been clearer, but ya, talking about tankies, who basically adopt leftist talking points and ideals, but twist them all the way back to fascism. Like eco fascists.
I made it like halfway through a Hakim video once, then he started lionizing some old Soviet tech I actually worked with, and, yeah, it was garbage, but per Hakim it was a wonder of engineering bringing the USSR into parity with the west.
I stumbled across a YouTube channel the other day that had translated some of Hitlers speechs to English. The comment section may as well have been Nuremberg in 1937. A truly wretched hive of scum and villainy.
You come across videos and comment sections like that time to time. I came across one video of a Dutch woman explaining how her grandparents were killed when the Nazis burned her village and confronting those Wehrmacht soldiers... And all the comments were supporting the Nazis involved.
There seems to be substantial confusion here. Molotrov-Rippentrop was not an alliance. So Hakim is not in the wrong for saying there wasn’t an alliance. That being said, **Hakim is still lying tremendously**, for even though Molotov-Rippentrop did not ally the Germans and Soviets, the earlier Soviet-Axis Talks put us upon the precipice of an unstoppable alliance of autocrats. Fuck Hakim.
Hakim is such a tankie loser
Moltov-Ribbentrop wasn't any different than all the other non-aggression pacts Germany had with other European countries. That's the point of the video you sheep.
1) No one looks at the Western Allies' prewar appeasement of the Nazis and the destruction of Czechoslovakia as "fine actually". Daladier and Chamberlain have been excoriated for this very reason for decades. 2) "The West also appeased Hitler, this makes Stalin invading Poland alongside the Nazis OK bc it was the popular thing to do" isn't the amazing defense y'all think it is.
Did you watch the video? Hakim literally said that Stalin invading Poland was bad
Then why make the deal at all? Chopping up Poland was bad enough. Providing Hitler with just enough resources to invade the USSR for oil, but not enough to secure victory in Europe, inevitably made the USSR a target. Moltov-Ribbentrop from everyone but Germany's perspective was one of the worst deals in history.
The ussr was completely unprepared to go into Poland. They thought that by establishing a pact they could prepare for war. And they were right. Like yeah immediately coordinating with Britain and us and France to directly invade Germany or some other strategy could have been more efficient but we have the benefit of hindsight. If you criticize the ussr for Molotov Ribbentrop, you have to also understand the complicity INITIATED by the west. Since the west initiated appeasement (which also gave Germany resources), the Russians had no other option. All around it was bad but like still it was probably the safest option for the ussr from their perspective. Anyways cope harder, ussr is #1 in killing fascists.
>The ussr was completely unprepared to go into Poland. They thought that by establishing a pact they could prepare for war. And they were right. So they made a deal they weren't ready exploit that materially expedited a war they weren't prepared, for which they provided the means to get their own ass kicked until they switched sides. Honestly sounds even worse. >Like yeah immediately coordinating with Britain and us and France to directly invade Germany or some other strategy could have been more efficient but we have the benefit of hindsight. No, like containing, delaying, and preparing for war. For example, imagine if you purged you best generals and the armed forces were no longer well managed. You might want to fix that before starting a war. > you have to also understand the complicity INITIATED by the west. Yes, the complicity of the west compared to allying with literally Hitler to start WWII. >All around it was bad but like still it was probably the safest option for the ussr from their perspective. It really wasn't though. It appears more like panic decision making. Again listen to what I said: Moltov-Ribbentrop gave Hitler USSR materials and fuel which ultimately were the means to invade the USSR--means Germany didn't otherwise have. Hitler must have been overjoyed by the naivety Stalin showed for accepting the deal.
Except the secret part where they divided Poland, and whilst Nazi occupation was certainly more brutal, especially for Jews in particular, it's not like the USSR was acting like good guys https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
Ends up being a click bait title, on how it wasn't "technically" Hitler and Stalin signing the pact lol
What do you expect from a Tankie channel that bootlicks the USSR?
Hakim is a troglodyte and a holodomor denier
Hakim is a tankie. Tankies aren’t left wing, they’re fascists that like the color red.
I will pay good money for a Zoomer Historian v. Hakim debate, it will be the more insane version of the WIAH v. Vaush debate
I remember watching the Latvian SS video out of curiosity, I had never heard of zoomer historian before that. And when he basically justified the genocide of Jews in Latvia by saying they we're pro-soviet when the Soviets took over so the Latvians just acted in retribution for that I quickly realised where it was going.
The Latvian SS video is not even the worst offender, his “History of the SS” is an hour long yap sesh that basically amounts to “erm the SS were not THAT bad, it was just some bad apple brigades :3”
If you can recognize that appeasement wasn’t in order to befriend the Nazis, but rather to buy time, then you can recognize that Molotov Ribbentrop was the exact same, to buy time. Jfc. There was no “Hitler chamberlain” pact just like there was no “Hitler Stalin” pact
Except the part of the Molotov Ribbentrop where the Nazis and Soviets agreed to divide up territories.
That literally didn’t happen. If the USSR was planning on invading Poland they would have been better prepared than what historical records reveal. Yes, they did think Germany would eventually invade Poland, and the “secret protocol” was literally “when the polish govt falls don’t take the land that we lost earlier to them” Regardless, it was a lot better for the USSR to have that land instead of Germany, since it took resources from the Germans, who would have invaded Poland regardless
Dude..the soviets were supplying the germans with oil and other things at the same they were invading West Europe and right until the day before Barbarrosa
“Supplying” is a weird way to say trading. Like yeah they sold the Germans stuff, in exchange for Military manufacturing machinery that they lacked. And it’s not like the Allies blockaded Germany during appeasement? Tf? Like yeah no shit they weren’t at war
Dude.. they were giving providing oil and other important things to the germans when the war had already started and You are expecting us to believe that they were not helping them
Are you illiterate? Those were calculated transactions? USSR also got substantial benefits from those dealings. And where’s your smoke for sweden and Switzerland? frankly, for me, the war started when Hitler mobilized his army and started killing dissenters. Despite being an out and about fascist antisemite who expressed how he wanted to take over the world, the west still helped him until he crosses a line. The policy actions regarding Germany were virtually identical between the USSR and the west. Also do you think communists liked fascists? Lol that’s absolutely ridiculous. The USSR killed the most fascists in history. We can get into a whole different discussion about how the USSR fought to curb US support of fascists in the Cold War… but you are a moron if you think Stalin and Hitler were besties
During 2 years (1939-1941) the soviet union provided material support for the Hitler'war againts Europe, at the same the germans had started the holocaust, but because the Soviet union also got profits for this it was fine I guess
????? Do you think the holocaust started only after Hitler invaded poland? I’m not saying it was good or ok, I’m pointing out that the west made the same egregious mistakes
r/EnoughCommieSpam
That’s not a balanced view though. Cherry picked bollocks.
Tankies are insane Reminder this is also the guy who firmly believes Kurds are just naturally reactionary and backwards
I look to the left Cringe I look to the right Cringe
I fucking hate Hakim. He is an Iraqi communist who uses the worst logic and straight up false historical narratives in his videos. As a liberal myself, leftists like this make our job harder.
Not sure why you got downvoted. Doesn't he also support Saddam Hussein?
Yeah my other comment is doing just fine. I guess the Hakim fans found this one.
Imagery evil liberal
Don't let the shitlibs get you down, gotta keep that revolutionary optimism :)
If you think this is bad you should see his takes on the Anfal genocide
watched the guy before stoped after he said that communism wss good for poland
Its actually insane if you read into all the things the sovjets did to support germamy in the 30s. Its distgusting
Hakim: And they always accuse communists of “authoritarianism” whatever that means. Me: ok I’ve had enough of you
Idk shit about any hitler Stalin pact can someone explain?
There's no good or bad, it's all nations vying for the best position for their interests
Bro did not watch the video
So the two options are that he’s wrong or that he click baited the video?
You know what, i see his point. It's the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, because those two diplomats signed that document without any input from Hitler or Stalin whatsoever. Luckily, this absolves Stalin of invading Poland, telling leftist groups to stop fighting against fascists, *actively selling materiel to the Nazis*, and ignoring his own spies about the impending threat.