top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 42 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Nazis LOVE pretending they're victims. All the time. Everywhere.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The entire Nazi ideology is rooted in victim mentality. The notion that the "Aryan" race is being oppressed by those barbaric Jews, Slavs, Romani, Chinese, etc. And because of that they need to exterminate those people before they can exterminate the Aryans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    "Fascism is capitalism in decay"

    -- IDK

    Edit: I think it's also the reactionary response capitalists have to left wing momentum in the population. Hitler leveraged the threat of communism to gain power and the first people he sent to camps were German communists. Sound familiar with this whole woke thing? When a population is stressed they will generally lean either far left or right and the right wing is in power and want to suppress the left wing.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The black book is some hilarious stuff. They count the hypothetical unborn children of nazis. Also it counts the nazis.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Reminder that multiple co-authors denounced the book when they saw how ludicrous the other sections were, such as tallying millions of Nazi soldiers as victims of communism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Wasn't there also a really egregious part where they were estimating how many children the average young adult woman had in Tsarist Russia vs the USSR, and because the birth rates were lower in the USSR, they counted the supposed population deficit as victims?

    Gonna make like a goose and ask them why women in the USSR had lower birth rates. Couldn't be access to contraception/abortion, sex and family planning education, equal rights as men, or better career options, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I refuse to believe that the tweet is real. This is just satire, right guys? Hahaha, please be satire

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I see you're lucky enough not to be familiar with the Victims of Communism Foundation. This is pretty standard for them.

    They're also extremely successfully at mainstreaming these kind of views: they're often cited by "respectable" western media like BBC, are used by Wikipedia, and are the original and only source for a lot of the kind of scandalous accusations against China that liberals will call you a tankie if you don't believe

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Surprised there are still comments denouncing it on X. Guess Grok isn't as good at censoring wokism as Elon claims.

    Also, I like this picture, gonna post it here in case it gets removed:

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    In case people aren't aware, the Victims of Communism foundation is a US government organization that was set up by an act of congress in 1993.

    Congress also passed a bill funding them to design highschool curriculum, called the "crucial communism teaching act".

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Just reminded me of a history teacher who, when teaching the Containment policy, showed us a jar with a slip of paper contained within, which read "COMMUNISM". Displayed prominently in the classroom thereafter.

    Didn't work on me. When my assigned seat changed such that the jar and I were out of view of the teacher while at the board, I popped the lid off in front of everyone.

    Lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago*

    My high school history class stopped the tankman video right before the tank tried to move out of the way and said "this is the only footage to escape the oppressive regime. We don't know what happened to tank man but we assume he was run over"

    When I finally saw the full video I thought it was fake

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago* (54 children)

    Since we're starting this debate again, I do wish to ask the people that think the Soviets shouldn't have gone into Poland: what should the Soviets have done?

    With benefit of hindsight and access to whatever formerly-secret documents, what is the best course of action for them?

  • source
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (47 children)

    I mean they could've not made a pact with Nazi Germany to jointly divide Eastern Europe. Like start from that.

    And before anyone mentions, that includes others who made pacts with them too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (45 children)

    But like what should they have done, reach out to other nations like UK and France to create an anti-nazi alliance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (42 children)

    Refuse to enable Nazi expansion, prepare for war, try to make allies. So carry on before they chose to make a pact. Making that pact with Nazis wasn't some inevitable law of nature they just had to do. You can always resist.

    There's always a reason for all kinds of actions but it's just an attempt to avoid moral scrutiny to present the situation as inevitable. There were other options, they chose not to do those but rather made a pact. Agree or disagree with the decision from moral or some realpolitik sense, doesn't matter. Presenting it as inevitable is avoidance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (35 children)

    molotow-ribbentrop was to buy time to prepare for war. They built a huge industrial complex east of the Ural to prepare since they correctly predicted that their facilities in the west would soon be overrun. They also tried to find allies but were shut down at every turn. When it was clear that there were no allies to be found and every other nation had made a non-aggression pact with the nazis only then did they resort to making their own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (34 children)

    I don't think anyone thought the USSR did it for no reason. I'm just saying they could've chosen not to make those pacts and that's why dividing Eastern Europe with the Nazis is given as a moral black mark for USSR.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    Lol, anti communists will never forgive the USSR for not letting the Nazis have all of Eastern Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    I don't think Nazis should've had any part of Europe tbh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Then you probably shouldn't condemn the soviets for not letting them have it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    They let Nazi Germany have parts of Poland and Lithuania in the agreement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    They weren't in a position to stop them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    We don't know how it would've played out if both Western Allies and the USSR committed publicly to declaring war in case Poland is attacked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    You're expecting the USSR to have imperilled tens of millions of lives and risk wholesale extermination by deliberately undermining their own position based solely on "well, you know for sure!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    France and UK committed to it. I don't expect the USSR to have done it, but I would've preferred to see that sort of larger deterrent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Ok.

    The USSR isn't obligated to sabotage it's own existence because some random unborn Finish person "would've preferred to see it"

    Not to mention the UK and Frances commitment turned out to be extremely token, a fact that came as zero suprise to the USSR

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    What's this about being obligated

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    So what even is your position anymore? You've stayed completely from where you started

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I haven't had any position on some obligations. I don't know where you got that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    You have a real issue actually answering questions, don't you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Hard to answer when you've refused to tell me what obligations you're talking about

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Why does that make it hard to answer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Because I don't know what you are referring to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You don't know what your own positions are?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I haven't had any position on obligations, that's why I'm confused by your question

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The UK and France didn't commit to jack shit. They had a long history of enabling the Nazis at that point, planning to use them as their attack dog in the east. Not only that, the USSR had been pleading for an anti-nazi alliance for a long time and got ignored.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago

    Um, they very much did make promises to that effect. Neither were in good position to actually help the Poles when push came to shove, hence the Phony War. Brittain did some good with their navy, but neither could get enough troops to where it mattered to help, so they buckled down on ramping up their own war efforts at home to better mobilize. Did they fo it out of cowardice and throw the Poles to the wolves, or out of necessity because they would have been overrun had they over commited? That's a question that has been the subject of much study. But they both very publicly and loudly commit to their defense, they simply failed to meaningfully uphold that commitment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Your country fought on the side of the Nazis in WW2, and helped them carry out the scorched earth policy you absolutely won't forgive the USSR for turning back.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not sure if we are supposed to agree with everything our countries have historically done. Are you from a place where you're comfortable with doing that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Well well well. How quickly one goes from "they should have done everything perfectly and not even buying time is morally acceptable, deplorable stuff really" to "oh my god what's a little Nazi collaboration between friends? Everyone was doing it anyway"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Why? It bought them time to prepare further and gave them the possibility to station troops forward in land that they knew was gonna be overrun by nazis and need liberation afterwards anyway. I really don't understand what's so bad about it. You dont win wars with "moral points" but with strategy like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    You're asking why making a pact with the Nazis is a black mark? I would think that's obvious. Same for Chamberlain and everyone else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    So your problem is that their victory over the nazis wasn't pure enough?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    My issue is that these sort of deals enables Nazis to conquer much of Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    They needed to buy time to prepare for war, it wasn't until the nazi horde was in Stalingrad that they were ready to fight back. The nazis were going to conquer as much as they did regardless. There doesn't seem to be any detrimental effect on reality to signing the pact.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    these sort of deals enables Nazis to conquer much of Europe.

    Stalin offered a million men to France and the UK to stop the nazis. They refused.

    Meanwhile, your country was literally in the Axis in WW2, and helped the nazis carry out their atrocities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Meanwhile, your country was literally in the Axis in WW2, and helped the nazis carry out their atrocities.

    Am I personally guilty of what happened in my country's the past or how is that relevant?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Damn, not a fan of people bringing up completely irrelevant points about what other countries should have done?

    Crazy. Sure would be embarrassing if that was something you constantly did yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    You really are writing a lot of responses that don't answer the question. It's funny how you go on about there being other options while diligently refusing to actually list them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Instead of making a pact with the Nazis, refuse to do that and prepare for war. Do you want a fucking WikiHow article detailing the steps for a troop mobilization of 1939 Soviet Union or what

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They did prepare for war with the Nazis, and the pact was part of that. So I take it then your answer is that they shouldn't have prepared as much for the war with the Nazis.

    Given that the level of preparedness they did manage was still only barely enough to win, you answer is ultimately that you wanted the USSR to take a course of action that would have allowed the Nazis to win the Eastern Front.

    Which is ultimately always what it comes down; resentment that the Soviets won.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't think anyone should've made pacts with Nazis and enabled their actions through that. It's not specific to the USSR.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So? The USSR had to make a decision in the world where the West did make those pacts. What you think has zero relevancy to that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago

    And they could've decided differently and try to prevent the attack on Poland from happening. Instead they made a pact, jointly carved up Poland (and took over the Baltics and invaded Finland).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    I mean, the obvious answer is instead of trying to divvy the sovereign nation between them, they should have stood up for them and defended them when the Nazis rolled in. Barring that, they should have liberated them, then left them the fuck alone. Even a stopped clock is right sometimes, this comparison is pretty clearly silly. They weren't lamenting the lives of Nazis lost in the battle to push them out of Poland. They were lamenting the lives of the Poles after falling under the Russian boot, after the battles were won.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago* (5 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    I'm asking those that believe the Soviets shouldn't have entered. You seem to believe that the Soviets should, but that they should not have done war crimes. And I would agree, not that I have any knowledge of that, but I am not asking you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Well, you said specifically (only said) they shouldn't have committed war crimes, which to some extent indicates that they should have gone into Poland. If you had a problem with them going into Poland, you should have talked about that and not brought up a different thing.

    Why are you talking to me if you don't want to? You can just... not.

    Also I am not your bro.

    Also please stop deleting your comments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    Anti-communism is a fancy name for fascism.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Often hilarious how the history is biased by some collectives. Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done. After this the cold war, where secret US papers were filtred, specifying locations in Europe where they were going to use nuclear bombs to stop an alleged Russian invasion.

    Cuba crisis, it causes almost a WWIII, because evil Russia wanted to park there nuclear missiles. What is never mentioned, was,that it was an answer to the US nuclear missiles that were parked long before in Turkey, pointing to Russia. The escalation was avoided by an Rusian commander, while the US already had the finger on the red button.

    Yes, certainly communism is really bad and the US the good boys which always save the world, even by nuke civilians in two cities, training and arm jihadists and Talibans, destroying democracies supporting dictators, like the September 11 with over 3000 victims, in 1973, when the CIA organized and supported an military coup by Pinochet to eliminate Allende.

    Most of the currend Wars in the world and dictatorships are direct or indirect caused by the work of our good US boys. Thank you America, GFY

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done

    The Soviet Union (and I say that to emphasize that it was not simply Russia) and other Allies also played an important role in the Pacific Theatre too once they had some breathing space. I suppose the US glorify it so aggressively because it's one of the few major wars they were on the winning side of, but when they rapidly promoted former Nazis to high political positions and launched Operation Gladio, one can't help but realize their troops were only sent there to stop those Nazis, not Nazism.

    How easily the US's friends are forgotten... [1][2]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    I have seen detailed explanations of why even their Pacific importance wasn't as big as they claimed.
    And they intervened in Europe not to stop the nazis but the Soviets from taking it all, which would've happened in no time if they didn't meet the 'allieds' in Berlin.
    I wonder who they were allied with BTW, since they saved 10000's of nazis from the Soviets and evacuated them, or in Italy let them surrender and enabled them to go fight the Soviets.
    All of the nazis in the west got fully rehabilitated despite the handful of death penalties in the Nuremberg showtrials.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›