No.1402530
So, let's see political alignment of Eastern Europe, shall we? It's just assumed that Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, all of them were Nazi allies from the start, but it's really not the case.
Czechoslovakia. Pro-French, part of little entente, allying with USSR against Nazis from the beginning. Anglo-French fed Czechs to Hitler (with Poland threatening to cut it's alliance with France if France helped Czechs, even).
Romania. Pro-British, and a part of little entente - i.e. a part of French alliance, and France had dealings with USSR. Following the fall of France and drastic change in geopolitical situation, they had Iron Guard coup which followed pro-Nazi policies. USSR took Bessarabia from them because pro-Nazi Romania was totally going to do anti-Soviet shit.
Hungary. Those guys were anti-British and anti-French due to territorial claims onto Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania. That said, Hungary didn't become a German ally until Germany fed Hungary lots of lands from all the neighbours, and even then Horthy demanded autonomy. Then there were separate peace talks of Hungary with Britain, even.
Baltic states. Pro-British, but mostly - pro-Swedish, actually, with Sweden investing heavily into the region (mostly into military). Given that Romanian front was secure, with Romania STILL NOT IN HITLER'S ALLIES in 1939, USSR had only to fear German attack through Poland and Baltics. Hence the Soviet 1939 moves - preventing an attack through Belgium, basically, by taking over said Belgium and putting up defences there. Also, cucking Sweden out of alliances which could drag Sweden into Anti-Soviet war. Finland is basically same as Baltics
Poland. HOO BOY this was a Germany-level warmonger. To begin with, Poland had a BIGGER ARMY THAN GERMANY AND USSR COMBINED until 1937 or even later. Poland was RARING to go to war with USSR, but it was continuously cucked by Soviet diplomatic efforts. Frustrated, Poland sought ANY FUCKING ALLY that could enable it to go to war (much like Finland). This included cozying up to Hitler and enabling him.
Yugoslavia. Pro-British initially, part of little entente, meaning also pro-French. Got increasingly pro-Nazi, joined Berlin Pact, and days later Soviets engineered a coup there to break up the anti-Soviet block somewhat.
Bulgaria. Pro-British initially, AGAIN, but like with everyone else in Eastern Europe, fall of France made them join Nazi side
Greece - pro-British, got invaded from all sides.
Turkey. Soviets threatened to start a war over Greater Armenia to prevent Turkey from taking sides in the war.
So, look at the map at Eastern Europe. IT'S ALL FUCKING PRO-BRITISH AND PRO-FRENCH, with Britain and France letting anti-Soviet sentiments go unchecked because they wanted a war against USSR. This warmongering shit caused those nations to fall into Nazi camp one way or another, with USSR countering this by at first forging alliances with whoever was willing to listen - Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, even Poland - but most of those failed due to Anglo-French interference.
1933 onwards, USSR was building up it's defences mainly on the northern front, including against Finland. Basically, defences against Nazis was also the same line of defences as against Poland and Finland. USSR pursued friendship with the French, and thus had better relations with little entente than with the rest. Romanian border was considered secure until Romania decided to switch sides. With Romania and Hungary committing to Nazi cause, USSR had to abandon initial plans of defence - in Poland and Baltics - and to stretch their front southwards to Black Sea.
In short, Munchen betrayal fucking murdered the security of Europe, made all prior British and French promises null and empty, and then the fall of France was the final nail in the Anglo-French domination of Europe with Nazis quite literally taking over everything those fucks have built in Europe prior. USSR had to navigate this shit and to somehow prevent a crusade of everyone against the Soviets, with French and British obstructing Soviet efforts to maintain peace in Europe. Then, when warmongering factions, which Anglo-French refused to stop supporting, took power and sided with Nazis, USSR had to deal with this shit too.
No.1403226
bump because actual quality bread
No.1403241
We already have a M-R thread, comrade.
>>1401495 No.1403244
>>1403241That thread is absolutely fucking retarded. This one is pretty good. So i vote to declare this thread as a main m-r thread.
No.1403251
Europe looked so much nicer before Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union exploded.
No.1403254
There's a random thread justifying the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact for some reason on this board once a month
No.1403255
>>1403254Because there are thread popping constantly trying to paint it as nazi-communist alliance.
No.1403262
>>1403255That's because it was
No.1403263
>>1403261
>Periphery starting war against imperialist backed fascist comprador regime isn't justified
>Wars against the imperial core - who are openly talking about preparing for a war against China - isn't justified
This is not the time for neutrality anymore
No.1403265
>>1403264Militarily dividing eastern europe, holding military parades together and supplying each other with raw resources is a alliance.
No.1403278
>>1403261
>brings up an irrelevant conflict 80 years later for no reason
stay in your containment thread
No.1403304
>>1403265>holding military parades togetherThey didn't. If you want to know what a parade looks, here's the pic.
> supplying each other with raw resources is a alliance.Less than 1% of what nazis got from the rest of the Europe in previous years. Do i also need to remind you continuous supply with oil (among other things) during the war time from "allied" countries?
Fuck off to /pol/
No.1403327
>>1403304>They didn't. If you want to know what a parade looks, here's the pic.How does this get rid of the fact that the USSR and the nazis held actual parades with their militaries?
> Less than 1% of what nazis got from the rest of the Europe in previous years. Do i also need to remind you continuous supply with oil (among other things) during the war time from "allied" countries?
> Raw materials that Germany had obtained from the Soviets through the 1940 agreement supported the German war effort against the Soviet Union from 1941. In particular, the German stocks of rubber and grain would not have sufficed to support the invasion of the USSR if the Soviets had not already exported these products to Germany No.1403331
>>1403304That's a march by the German-American Bund that happened to use the US flag
Here's the actual Soviet Red Army representing the Soviet state and the Wehrmacht together
No.1403341
>>1403331>That's a march by the German-American Bund that happened to use the US flagYes and it looks more like a joint parade than those photos your kind usually shows. Because there was no parade. Germans exited under soviet escort from the city and then soviets forces entered. That is the best you can show and tey don't even eave flags together or even march together, all you have are separate photos of their forces at different times.
>>1403327>How does this get rid of the fact that the USSR and the nazis held actual parades with their militaries?Because they didn't. Simple as.
<Raw materials that Germany had obtained from the Soviets through the 1940 agreement supported the German war effort against the Soviet Union from 1941. In particular, the German stocks of rubber and grain would not have sufficed to support the invasion of the USSR if the Soviets had not already exported these products to GermanyAnd who exactly are you quoting? You need to show actual numbers.
Also, again supporting them with oil during the war is on "allies". Letting them grow strong and annex Austria, conquer Czechoslovakia (while preventing USSR to help them) and the rest made MUCH bigger impact than whatever pitiful trade happened in a couple years after '39.
No.1403347
>>1403341>Because there was no paradeEvery argument on this hellhole sit just ends up with someone trying to explain to another that the sky isn't purple.
No.1403370
>>1403347The go back to wherever you came from.
Do you even know the definition of the parade? like try to google it on youtube or something. Watch the parades wherever they were done by nazi, soviet, usa or any other country. And that is not what they gonna look as.
Soviets escorted germans from the city. Those photos show nothin more than that.
No.1403374
>>1403254Cos libs like you are forever whining about it.
No.1403389
>>1403331this definitely happened, but you'd be pretty retarded to believe it was an
alliance, both sides were very obviously gearing for a confrontation. The fault with the Soviets is that they believed a war would come much further down the line.
No.1403597
>>1403331Germans wanted a joint parade to make it look like Soviets supported their occupation of Poland - and to show Allies that USSR is pro-German - while Soviets tried to keep neutral and not to offend anyone. While I'd rather ideally had USSR be belligerent against Nazis, USSR wasn't a superman of a country to fight two wars back-to-back, first against Nazis and then against Allies.
No.1403605
>>1403265>>1403331Calling it an "alliance" is an obvious attempt to imply some degree of ideological similarity and long term compatibility between the two sides. Obviously the Nazis were planning on attacking the Soviets, and the Soviets themselves were expecting an attack, just not so soon. Some alliance, where you are fully intending and actively preparing to go to war with your "ally". Virtually all major European powers signed non aggression pacts, agreed to the partition of various territories, and traded with the Third Reich, yet nobody speaks of an "alliance" between Germany and Britain, France, or Poland. It's a clear double standard with an ideological goal.
This isn't even getting into the fact that all of it is beside the point. Ideological purity in international relations simply doesn't exist. Castro spoke positively of Franco, the US cooperated with China against the USSR, Catholic France fought alongside Pr*testant heathens in the 30 years war. What really matters when analyzing the objective historical significance of a state vis a vis the revolutionary process are its net contributions to this process as they are expressed in forms particular to a time and place. Obviously the anti-fascist struggle was one of (if not the sole) leading forms of revolutionary struggle in 1930s-1940s Europe. Thus the USSR must be assessed in relation to this struggle based on the net effects of their actions, rather than looking at specific actions in isolation from the whole. So, did the Soviet Union contribute more to the anti-fascist struggle than they obstructed it? Was Molotov-Ribbentrop, even if we are to interpret it in the least charitable way possible, so heinous as to outweigh completely destroying the Third Reich? Obviously not. Anybody who complains about it and tries to claim that it seriously detracts from the USSR's revolutionary and anti-fascist legacy is a naive purist at best and a bourgeois propagandist at worst.
No.1403616
>>1403597>Germans wanted a joint paradeWhich is why they tried their hardest to make photos that kinda sorta maybe look like one. Ironically libs now repeat nazi propaganda without second thought.
No.1403624
Don't look up 1932 Berlin transport strike worst mistake of my life
No.1403631
>>1403624>lost one argument, immediately starts anotherDon't derail thread.
No.1403636
>>1403605>Calling it an "alliance" is an obvious attempt to imply some degree of ideological similarity and long term compatibility between the two sides
> All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies
> Obviously the Nazis were planning on attacking the Soviets, and the Soviets themselves were expecting an attackLmao
> Virtually all major European powers signed non aggression pacts, agreed to the partition of various territories, and traded with the Third ReichI thought a supposed "communist" state was against the kind of realpolitik capitalists are famous for?
> Ideological purity in international relations simply doesn't exist. Castro spoke positively of Franco, the US cooperated with China against the USSR, Catholic France fought alongside Pr*testant heathens in the 30 years war.Why do you speak of this like its a good think that should be tolerated in communist organisations. This is like saying unions should become populist and nationalists when its popular.
No.1403637
>>1403636>This is like saying unions should become populist and nationalists when its popularGood chance other anon thinks this
No.1403638
>>1403636this is just a troll arguing in a bad faith, don't feed him
No.1403642
>>1403636>I thought a supposed "communist" state was against the kind of realpolitik capitalists are famous for?Says who?
>Why do you speak of this like its a good think that should be tolerated in communist organisations.I'm saying that objectively speaking, it doesn't outweigh the positive elements. If we accept that pure revolutions don't exist, then the only basis on which to assess them is their net contribution to the struggle, ie do their positive effects outweigh the negative ones. Obviously its something we should seek to avoid, but we also should acknowledge that it will always happen to some extent. Who tf cares about Molotov-Ribbentrop when just a few years later the Red Army had ripped out the guts of Nazism? Which event had a greater impact on the ultimate fate of European fascism? Was it the signing of this pact or the capture of Berlin?
No.1403647
>>1403642>Says who?Says you, you just brought up the US allying with china (literally THE textbook case for realpolitik) as something seemingly to be emulated.
> I'm saying that objectively speaking, it doesn't outweigh the positive elementsIt destroys any party programme if you go about it with the attitude of "hey we can at least always just ally with literal fascists"
> If we accept that pure revolutions don't exist, then the only basis on which to assess them is their net contribution to the struggle, ie do their positive effects outweigh the negative onesConsidering the fact that the ussr fucking collapsed we can easily see that no it didn't work.
> Obviously its something we should seek to avoid, but we also should acknowledge that it will always happen to some extent."communists" allying and helping fascists is something we just have to accept? Do you hear yourself?
> Who tf cares about Molotov-Ribbentrop when just a few years later the Red Army had ripped out the guts of Nazism?Probably the fact that it lead to one of the deadliest conflicts in history and that the trade agreement fuelled nazi anti-communist activity in the rest of europe.
> Which event had a greater impact on the ultimate fate of European fascism?What's the difference when in the end capitalism still exists? What's the point of all this expert political moves when in the end it didn't bring about socialism?
No.1403664
>>1403647>Says you, you just brought up the US allying with china (literally THE textbook case for realpolitik) as something seemingly to be emulated. No I brought it up as something that is definitely going to keep happening and that we need to accept is the reality, even as we work to discourage it.
>It destroys any party programme if you go about it with the attitude of "hey we can at least always just ally with literal fascists"If part of the party program is to destroy fascism, then you need to convince me that the USSR did more to help fascism than they did to destroy it.
>Considering the fact that the ussr fucking collapsed we can easily see that no it didn't work. Yeah sure m8, the USSR collapsed because of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
>"communists" allying and helping fascists is something we just have to accept?If you reject every revolutionary movement that develops friendly or amicable relationships with reactionaries at times then you will reject every revolutionary movement. They will almost all do this at some point.
>Probably the fact that it lead to one of the deadliest conflicts in history and that the trade agreement fuelled nazi anti-communist activity in the rest of europe.The conflict was going to happen anyway, as would that anti-communist activity. Again, any contributions the Soviets made to this is dwarfed by their contribution to the anti-fascist struggle.
>What's the difference when in the end capitalism still exists? Anti-fascism was one step in the anti-capitalist struggle. Obviously as long as fascism was strong there could be no socialism, i.e. destroying fascism was (and remains) a necessary task of the revolution. The fact that the Soviets failed in their subsequent tasks doesn't mean they were wrong here. Certainly the task of destroying fascism in Europe is one of their greatest contributions to the revolutionary cause.
No.1403670
>>1403664>No I brought it up as something that is definitely going to keep happening and that we need to accept is the reality, even as we work to discourage it. Done by imperialists, not by communists
>If part of the party program is to destroy fascism, then you need to convince me that the USSR did more to help fascism than they did to destroy it.The goal is the end of capitalism, not just one strain of it, what's the point of sacrificing so much when in the end capitalism just still exists?
>Yeah sure m8, the USSR collapsed because of Molotov-Ribbentrop.My point is why tout geopolitical policies of a state when that state ended up failing?
> If you reject every revolutionary movement that develops friendly or amicable relationships with reactionaries at times then you will reject every revolutionary movementRevolutionary movement have entire reigns of terror dedicated to killing off reactionaries,
> We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terrorwhat on earth gave you the idea that a revolutionary movement would or should be kind to reactionaries?
> The conflict was going to happen anyway, as would that anti-communist activityThen why fuel it or help it?
> Again, any contributions the Soviets made to this is dwarfed by their contribution to the anti-fascist struggle.The point is the abolition of capitalism, not one type of it, do you think workers in the modern day going into poverty care that almost a century ago the nazis got defeated?
> Anti-fascism was one step in the anti-capitalist struggle.Well it obviously didn't fucking work.
No.1403676
>>1403670>My point is why tout geopolitical policies of a state when that state ended up failing?If libs like you had your way, the USSR would've been massacred in white terror in 1919. Instead, it went on to liberate hundreds of millions.
Fuck off.
No.1403681
>>1403676Are you another autistic leninhat anon on this site?
No.1403684
>>1403681Are you another fascist or liberal (but I repeat myself).
No.1403687
>>1403684>but I repeat myselfThat's part of the point i was making before
No.1403690
>>1403681we're all lenin hats on this day
No.1403691
>>1403687What point would that be? You being a fascist worm?
No.1403694
>>1403670>Done by imperialists, not by communistsDone by both. The Soviets did it, the CPC did it, Cuba did it. It will continue to happen.
>The goal is the end of capitalism, not just one strain of it, what's the point of sacrificing so much when in the end capitalism just still exists?How would the Soviets have ended capitalism in Europe if the whole thing was under Nazi control? The struggle against fascism can be pursued in concert with a broader struggle against capitalism, or it can be pursued separately by a popular front, but it must be pursued. This is what made it a primary contradiction at that time and place. No other struggles could have progressed unless the struggle against fascism does, since fascism was the leading obstacle to their progression.
>My point is why tout geopolitical policies of a state when that state ended up failing?I'm not saying we should unconditionally praise everything they did, but obviously they achieved a level of success that most communists today could only dream of. Their destruction of Nazi Germany was undoubtedly one of their greatest successes. This is not seriously marred by Molotov-Ribbentrop, since whatever this may have done to strengthen fascism is vastly outweighed by everything they did to smash it.
>what on earth gave you the idea that a revolutionary movement would or should be kind to reactionaries?Sometimes doing so can have tangible benefits for revolutionary forces. The US were reactionaries in the 40s just as they are today, but the Viet Minh still accepted their support in the struggle against Japan. What would they have gained by rejecting it and being needlessly hostile?
>Then why fuel it or help it?The Soviets signed the pact as a way to ensure that war would break out between Germany and France before it broke out with the USSR, thus ensuring that there would be no German-British-French coalition against the Soviets. It actually accomplished this goal.
>The point is the abolition of capitalism, not one type of it, do you think workers in the modern day going into poverty care that almost a century ago the nazis got defeated?See above. You can't abolish capitalism if it's being kept in power by a fascist state. The anti-fascist struggle can move in lockstep with the anti-capitalist struggle or it can move independently, but if it does not move then nothing else will. This is how you distinguish primary from secondary contradictions. A primary contradiction is one which must be advanced in order for anything else to advance, whether simultaneously or subsequently. Capitalism could not have been overthrown as long as the Nazi state remained intact, any other form of struggle was contingent on the success of this endeavor.
>Well it obviously didn't fucking work.It did when it came to destroying Nazism. Again, success in one phase of the struggle does not guarantee success in the next. Moreover the failure of the next phase does not mean that the first phase was carried out incorrectly.
No.1403696
>>1403691That trying to tout the end of fascism as the end all goal of the labour movement fundamentally misunderstands what communism is, it's the sublation of capitalism as a whole not just one kind of it
No.1403701
>>1403696It's not an end goal, but an immediate one. Under the circumstances at the time, it was a goal that needed to be accomplished in order for any other goals to be accomplished.
No.1403702
>>1403696I never said that it's the end goal, but it is part of it. Fascists are the shock troops of the bourgeoisie aiming to throttle communism and keep the proletariat suppressed.
No.1403716
>>1403694> It will continue to happenYeah by opportunists, it's something to combat not welcome.
> How would the Soviets have ended capitalism in Europe if the whole thing was under Nazi control?How would it end capitalism if it's under bourgeoisie democratic control? either way capital still exists.
> The struggle against fascism can be pursued in concert with a broader struggle against capitalism, or it can be pursued separately by a popular front, but it must be pursuedThe popular front and this movement to place the end of fascism above the end of capitalism ruined muktiple communist parties and just made them lackey for the bourgiosie. The whole stratergy is to abandon organising the working class in favour for helping the bourguosie. To give a example during the 1930s while striking chicago steel workers were being gunned down in the street for fighting for their livelihood, the communist party of the United States was too busy to help because it was dedicating all it's time and resources to helping new deal democrats elected as directed by the antifascist policy of the comintern as the democrats would be less hostile to the USSR. It only helps the geopolitical ambitions of the USSR at the expense of the global working class.
> I'm not saying we should unconditionally praise everything they did, but obviously they achieved a level of success that most communists today could only dream of.Most communists look at the labour organising of the russian proletariat, not the USSR cutting deals with fascists.
> Sometimes doing so can have tangible benefits for revolutionary forcesIt literally never does.
> The US were reactionaries in the 40s just as they are today, but the Viet Minh still accepted their support in the struggle against Japan. What would they have gained by rejecting it and being needlessly hostile? Again why tout that as a good example when it just led to capital still existing in vietnam and the Vietnamese state actually begging for american capitalists to come over and invest?
> You can't abolish capitalism if it's being kept in power by a fascist stateThat must be why communist revolutions spread throughout post war europe when the nazis fell
> Capitalism could not have been overthrown as long as the Nazi state remained intactCapital is not something that is shackled to one nation, it is a international movement and must be tackled internationally not just in one nation
> It did when it came to destroying NazismThat's not the primary goal of the labour movement.
> Moreover the failure of the next phase does not mean that the first phase was carried out incorrectly.It obviously was
No.1403717
>>1403702What's the difference if the police gunning down strikers wear swastikas instead of the german tricolour?
No.1403719
>>1403716>revolutions spread throughout post war europe They did.
Czechoslovakia (inb4 WAHHHH SOVIET COUP)
Greece was defeated
And in the far east, the defeat of fascist Japan led to China and Vietnam becoming socialist.
Not every revolution will succeed.
No.1403723
>>1403719>They didThen why is every nation in europe capitalist? why do commodities, wage labour, private property and the division of labour still exist?
No.1403726
>>1403717Good job completely changing the topic. I get it, you'd prefer if Operation Barbarossa succeeded, now go back to your country club.
No.1403728
>>1403726Nice rhetoric, if you're going to throw insults at least make them decent insults
No.1403730
>>1403728What SS division was your grandfather in?
No.1403735
>>1403732Ah right, SAVAK agent then
No.1403737
>>1403735My family were peasants
No.1403738
>>1403737So? Communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, not peasants.
No.1403739
>>1403716>Yeah by opportunists, it's something to combat not welcome.Sure Anon, all extant and historical revolutionary projects are opportunists. Only you in your armchair know how to REALLY build communism.
>How would it end capitalism if it's under bourgeoisie democratic control?It wouldn't, but it would make doing so much easier. Fascism exists precisely in situations where liberal democracy begins to become a greater threat than an asset to bourgeois rule.
>The popular front and this movement to place the end of fascism above the end of capitalism ruined muktiple communist partiesWhich communist party took a bigger hit in the 30s? Was it the KPD or the CPUSA?
>Again why tout that as a good example when it just led to capital still existing in vietnam and the Vietnamese state actually begging for american capitalists to come over and invest?Maybe you should ask Vietnamese communists about these policies and read their theory instead of being an ignorant chauvinist. Vietnam's state and communist party retain control of the majority of their economy, they retain their independence and are overcoming underdevelopment on their own terms. As things stand right now Vietnam retains the ability to pursue the path of socialist construction, which is not something they could have done as a Japanese or US colony. Again, understand the difference between primary and secondary contradictions.
>it is a international movement and must be tackled internationally not just in one nationThe Soviets did that, but in Europe specifically Nazi Germany was the leading defender of capitalism. Their destruction was a necessary component of the destruction of capitalism. The fact that their defeat was not sufficient does not make it less necessary.
>It obviously wasBased on what? Would the Soviets have been better off if Nazi Germany had been allowed to continue existing?
No.1403743
>More people react to incredibly obvious troll than to initial good post about important historical even
Fuck you, /leftypol/
No.1403746
>>1403739>Sure Anon, all extant and historical revolutionary projects are opportunistsThey're not, you can tell the difference by seeing if they work towards abolishing the present state of things, not just reorganising it.
> It wouldn't, but it would make doing so much easierWell it evidently wasn't easier, in many cases the tactics used by facsists were just adapted.
>Which communist party took a bigger hit in the 30s? Was it the KPD or the CPUSA?Both, the KPD decayed after the mistakes and failures of the revolutions of 1917-1924 and the CPUSA just became stalinist and did bullshit like i brought up while the american working class suffered.
> Maybe you should ask Vietnamese communists about these policies and read their theory instead of being an ignorant chauvinistI have, this is a good piece on the conflict
https://libriincogniti.wordpress.com/2021/02/18/kommunistisches-programm-the-formation-of-the-vietnamese-national-state/It covers leading to Vietnam today, as well as the development of communism in Vietnam.
>It is no coincidence that reading the Pentagon Papers feels like reading an intimate report from the criminal milieu: Professional torturers and perpetrators of violence are at work here for the most developed capitalism; the yardstick for their actions against Vietnam is “increasing the pain quotient”. And here torture was indeed collectivised: they wanted to torture the Vietnamese people through all forms of suffering and death to the point that they would be willing to bend unconditionally to the will of the USA. But this is nothing less than applying the popular principle of torture not against individuals but against an entire people. It is always the same: the status quo is sacred and any attack against this declared eternal state of affairs is nothing but subversion that must be violently broken. As has been mentioned, one believes oneself to be in the gangster milieu and yet one only looks into the serious faces of imperialist capital.The position is not that "actually it doesn't matter it's just liberalism" but that one should analyze these precisely-imperialist capital is horrific, and this fight was against this horror, but it was still a national liberation movement that brings about bourgeois liberalism and integration into capitalism and not "socialism".
> The Soviets did thatNo they didn't, did socialism in one country just not happen to you?
> Would the Soviets have been better off if Nazi Germany had been allowed to continue existing?The purpose of the labour movement is the abolition of the capital not the geopolitical position of nation states. The problems go back to the initial revolutionary wave launched by the bolsheviks
>>1403743It's trolling to point out that allying with fascists isn't a communist programme?
No.1403757
>>1403739>Would the Soviets have been better off if Nazi Germany had been allowed to continue existing?If a war in Europe was prevented, if there was no WW2 - say, if USSR managed to save Czechoslovakia, or if Poland surrendered Danzing without a fight, or if France didn't fall so quickly, and WW1-like stalement happened - and thus Nazi Germany continued existing, yeah, in that kind of a world USSR would be better off because Germany would be a buffer state between USA and Anglo-French and USSR. Like China today enjoys having Russia as a buffer against USA and Europe, basically
No.1403759
>>1403723>Then why is every nation in europe capitalist? History is not a straight line, it's back and forth.
No.1403762
>>1403757The whole purpose of nazism being put into power was for the German bourgeoisie to destroy the USSR.
No.1403763
>>1403759Why fuck with back and forth when you should just dedicate all efforts to going foward?
No.1403764
>>1403762Eh, it's still porkies. Why would porkies attack USSR, which was waaaay above Germany's weight class, if they could attack Britain or France? That happened in history, it's just that fall of France created an avalanche of European countries switching sides. Just like how Brits wanted to make Nazis fight Soviets, just the same way it could have been Brits and Nazis fight while USSR plays the peacemaker, creating a better Europe than what we got historically. With less casualties, too. Nazi economy would have collapsed soon anyway
No.1403765
>>1403764>Why would porkies attack USSR, which was waaaay above Germany's weight class, if they could attack Britain or FranceBecause of anticommunism and the desire to conquer the USSR's resources.
No.1403767
>>1403765Yeah, but why would they attack USSR if they are both weaker, and they don't have a way to attack USSR from many sides at once, like historically was the case? What if Germany could attack only through Eastern Prussia? Like, Nazis wanted to fight in Africa, ffs.
No.1403775
>>1403767They'd have used Poland to attack it anyway.
No.1403863
>>1403860Let me predict the response
<they were all rashist capitalist regimes<ignore the fact that my nazi grandfather fought in the baltic forests with US-UK help until the 1950s, ignore that all anticommunists still hated the USSR, ignore that workers lost out hugely in the 1990s when socialism was overthrown No.1403865
>>1403860Do you not know what "socialism in one country" refers to? Is this the level of knowledge one has to deal with here?
No.1403871
>>1403865I'm pretty sure the leninhat anon is genuinely autistic
No.1403873
>>1403865Building up and defending socialism in a country to spread it later, which is what the USSR did.
No.1404130
clearly this anon lives in an alternate universe where trotsky won instead of stalin
No.1404588
>>1403865Do you? Do you think it literally means that the USSR had no interest in spreading the revolution? Like Leninhat said, it meant consolidating socialism in the USSR in order to spread it later, which is exactly what they did.
No.1404938
>Nazis quite literally taking over everything those fucks have built in Europe prior
Yeah for like a year. The nazis still lost. All's well that ends well.
No.1404994
>Nazis do "Judeo-Bolshevik" rhetoric for a decade
>Allies refuse to help at all
>Soviets agree to a pact that pushes the frontline hundreds of kilometers west into Poland
>this is later shown to be completely justified as Nazis get within 20km of Moscow
I don't see why this is controversial, at least among leftists
Unique IPs: 16