Quick question, who formed an alliance with Hitler? Stalin or Roosevelt?
The answer to this question is “Mussolini and Tojo”. Several European countries signed a “Non Aggression Pact” before the USSR, and then the USSR signed a “Non Aggression Pact” to buy time because they knew an invasion was inevitable.
Aha, but we decided that World War II arbitrarily started when Germany invaded Poland after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and didn’t start because of any conflicts before or after that. Checkmate, tankie
Viewing WWI and WW2 as basically one giant war with an interlude would be too difficult for Neoliberal posters but if you mention Crecy or Agincourt they’ll probably blather something about the Hundred Years War. Deeply unserious understanders of History.
In fairness, I do think that the “one long war” thesis becomes less relevant when you step outside of Europe.
In Asia, WWII grew much more directly out of the second Sino-Japanese War, which is much more related to the long strand of Japanese imperialism towards mainland Asia than the outcome of WWI (though of course animosity at some of the outcomes of Versailles were relevant, I don’t think they were such a defining factor). In the Middle East, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire meant that the region went from one of the primary belligerents to somewhat of a sideshow. I’m sure someone more well versed in Africa and South America could also point out some differences between the wars.
I did always like the Second Thirty Years War for WW1, Russian Revolution,various failed revolutions, various Soviet wars and the foreign invasion of the USSR, Italian invasion of Abyssinia,the Spanish Civil War, Sino-Japanese war, WW2, post WW2 uprisings etc
It really is interesting how these people can skate by saying the USSR and Nazis had an alliance while I have to actually be knowledgeable about history and economics. I suppose I wouldn’t think what I do if I weren’t knowledgeable. I would probably think what they think.
The USSR also tried to form alliances with the Allies but we’re rejected. Nazi Germany was very much their last choice despite being invaded by many of the Allies during the Russian Civil War
yes and I wouldn’t really say nazi germany was a “choice” for an ally, or even an “ally,” the soviets were, again, stalling, buying time, and pretty much knew germany was eventually going to invade them, since hitler had spent the previous 19 years screeching into microphones about “judeobolshevism” and “the slavic untermensch” and the need for “lebensraum”
(yeah I’m posting wikipedia, I don’t feel like spending the rest of my sunday night hunting down the specific books on libgen that are cited on each page, suffice it to say these are events which did occur, and even English Wikipedia doesn’t deny them, the problem with a lot of these pacts is that they are named different things by different countries)
What makes people freak out about molotov ribbentrop is the agreement to partition states. the reason for this is because the USSR needed time to deconstruct factories and move them east before the luftwaffe could bomb them. The USSR made a calculated risk that by dividing poland they could move the future war front far west of where it would otherwise be if they refused a non aggression pact and just got invaded right away, and at the same time, move their war industry far east of the war front. Of course by making this calculated risk they gave an easy propaganda victory to all bourgeois nations who experience collective amnesia about every other non aggression pact, as well as their categorical refusal to enter into collective security against fascism with the “bolshevik menace” in the 1930s. It is somewhat similar to how USSR tried to join NATO in the 50s and was refused. The bourgeois nations never wanted collective security or peace with the USSR, even when it was on the table. In particular the USSR only invaded finland because it was the most convenient route to invade the USSR, and the Finnish (a future axis power) wouldn’t sell them the land that the nazis eventually used to invade.
But mah westphalian sacred nation state national borders sovereignty! You can’t just go around doing sttategy like the lines on the map aren’t sacred and holy!
Note that the Finnish government was prepared to accept the land swap with the ussr until some old White generals barged in and shut it all down. But, again, my sovereignty! Won’t anyone think of my sovereignty!
Similar amnesia about Putin trying to normalize relations with the west and join nato years ago.
What makes people freak out about molotov ribbentrop is the agreement to partition states.
Made even “funnier” given that the Munich Agreement ALSO included a partition agreement: Germany got the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. Truly just hypocrisy to single out the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact like they do
They’re also trying to argue against an economic system based on something that a guy who has been dead for seventy tears did almost a century ago, when our critique of their farcical imitation of an economy is very much grounded in this week’s politics.
It would be sick if we actually judged Capitalism as a mode of production by the Late Victorian genocides committed by England, Belgium, and other Capitalist/Colonialist powers, but we know that will never happen.
Can you imagine? “Stalin did a bad thing!” “Oh yeah? Here’s a list of the, idfk, probably half a billion people capitalism has directly murdered since it’s inception, and then we’ll start on the starvation deaths”.
from the comments
The answer to this question is “Mussolini and Tojo”. Several European countries signed a “Non Aggression Pact” before the USSR, and then the USSR signed a “Non Aggression Pact” to buy time because they knew an invasion was inevitable.
Aha, but we decided that World War II arbitrarily started when Germany invaded Poland after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and didn’t start because of any conflicts before or after that. Checkmate, tankie
Viewing WWI and WW2 as basically one giant war with an interlude would be too difficult for Neoliberal posters but if you mention Crecy or Agincourt they’ll probably blather something about the Hundred Years War. Deeply unserious understanders of History.
In fairness, I do think that the “one long war” thesis becomes less relevant when you step outside of Europe.
In Asia, WWII grew much more directly out of the second Sino-Japanese War, which is much more related to the long strand of Japanese imperialism towards mainland Asia than the outcome of WWI (though of course animosity at some of the outcomes of Versailles were relevant, I don’t think they were such a defining factor). In the Middle East, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire meant that the region went from one of the primary belligerents to somewhat of a sideshow. I’m sure someone more well versed in Africa and South America could also point out some differences between the wars.
These dorks dont consider anything in the pacific part of the conflict until post pearl harbour
I did always like the Second Thirty Years War for WW1, Russian Revolution,various failed revolutions, various Soviet wars and the foreign invasion of the USSR, Italian invasion of Abyssinia,the Spanish Civil War, Sino-Japanese war, WW2, post WW2 uprisings etc
It really is interesting how these people can skate by saying the USSR and Nazis had an alliance while I have to actually be knowledgeable about history and economics. I suppose I wouldn’t think what I do if I weren’t knowledgeable. I would probably think what they think.
The USSR also tried to form alliances with the Allies but we’re rejected. Nazi Germany was very much their last choice despite being invaded by many of the Allies during the Russian Civil War
yes and I wouldn’t really say nazi germany was a “choice” for an ally, or even an “ally,” the soviets were, again, stalling, buying time, and pretty much knew germany was eventually going to invade them, since hitler had spent the previous 19 years screeching into microphones about “judeobolshevism” and “the slavic untermensch” and the need for “lebensraum”
Bold to think they understand anything that isn’t their talking points
could somebody post sources for those?
(yeah I’m posting wikipedia, I don’t feel like spending the rest of my sunday night hunting down the specific books on libgen that are cited on each page, suffice it to say these are events which did occur, and even English Wikipedia doesn’t deny them, the problem with a lot of these pacts is that they are named different things by different countries)
Four-Power Pact (worth noting france did not ratify)
Hitler Pilsudski Pact
Anglo German Naval Agreement
Anti Comintern Pact since this was between Japan/Germany there’s less amnesia about it
German/British and German/French 1938 non aggression pacts are usually just called the Munich Agreement in English language sources to obfuscate what was happening
German Romanian Economical Treaty March 1939
German Ultimatum to Lithuania in March 1939 seems a bit unfair to characterize as a treaty tbh
“Pact of Steel” with Italy 1939 Now THIS is actually a military alliance pact, which is what people keep characterizing molotov-ribbentrop as
Danish-German non aggression pact May 1939 this one isn’t wikipedia
Germany Estonia N-A-Pact June 7th 1939
German-Latvian N-A-Pact June 7th 1939
Molotov Ribbentrop Pact
Also it’s worth noting that even though the USA never signed a non aggression pact with nazi germany, american capitalists were quite fond of funding nazis, doing trade with nazis, and even hosting nazi party rallies in the United States (such as one in madison square garden in 1939). And there was even a fascist attempt at a coup against FDR, that was thwarted by smedley butler being a whistleblower.
What makes people freak out about molotov ribbentrop is the agreement to partition states. the reason for this is because the USSR needed time to deconstruct factories and move them east before the luftwaffe could bomb them. The USSR made a calculated risk that by dividing poland they could move the future war front far west of where it would otherwise be if they refused a non aggression pact and just got invaded right away, and at the same time, move their war industry far east of the war front. Of course by making this calculated risk they gave an easy propaganda victory to all bourgeois nations who experience collective amnesia about every other non aggression pact, as well as their categorical refusal to enter into collective security against fascism with the “bolshevik menace” in the 1930s. It is somewhat similar to how USSR tried to join NATO in the 50s and was refused. The bourgeois nations never wanted collective security or peace with the USSR, even when it was on the table. In particular the USSR only invaded finland because it was the most convenient route to invade the USSR, and the Finnish (a future axis power) wouldn’t sell them the land that the nazis eventually used to invade.
But mah westphalian sacred nation state national borders sovereignty! You can’t just go around doing sttategy like the lines on the map aren’t sacred and holy!
Note that the Finnish government was prepared to accept the land swap with the ussr until some old White generals barged in and shut it all down. But, again, my sovereignty! Won’t anyone think of my sovereignty!
Similar amnesia about Putin trying to normalize relations with the west and join nato years ago.
Made even “funnier” given that the Munich Agreement ALSO included a partition agreement: Germany got the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. Truly just hypocrisy to single out the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact like they do
They’re also trying to argue against an economic system based on something that a guy who has been dead for seventy tears did almost a century ago, when our critique of their farcical imitation of an economy is very much grounded in this week’s politics.
It would be sick if we actually judged Capitalism as a mode of production by the Late Victorian genocides committed by England, Belgium, and other Capitalist/Colonialist powers, but we know that will never happen.
Can you imagine? “Stalin did a bad thing!” “Oh yeah? Here’s a list of the, idfk, probably half a billion people capitalism has directly murdered since it’s inception, and then we’ll start on the starvation deaths”.