Just had to sit through a cowbee lecture about how stalin was actually protecting poland from the Nazis.
This meme and the upvote ratio gives me a bit of hope not everyone is deep in revisionism.
Just had to sit through a cowbee lecture about how stalin was actually protecting poland from the Nazis.
This meme and the upvote ratio gives me a bit of hope not everyone is deep in revisionism.
Pug banned them? This is like the most pug like user in a long time, tied with cm00002. Oh right pug can't handle that
Pug banning them is really bizarre, they're basically a one to one with Pug. Really odd.
Considering pug seems to hate everyone it wouldn't surprise me, especially with ops behavior.
Vote manipulation as the reason though is just hilarious
It was actually moreso because crossposting isn't available on piefed.world yet.
I've never automated any voting processes, btw, they just banned me because they don't like me lmao. The other day I got a screencap of one of the DB0 Tankiejerk mods outing himself as a Tankie, I highly reccomend people use the REAL tankiejerk community.

Literally nothing in that screenshot is supporting your claim, you're just being insufferable.
He's so far right, every vaguely progressive person is a Tankie to him.
Yeah I tagged him as a shitlib in Thunder when he was yapping about how Gavin Newsom is somehow beyond criticism the other day.
Right, no, of course being defensive for Tankies and including them in "we" totally isn't Tankie behavior.
I was in a few of the other posts you made with this... and this behavior is not what i assumed. Why are you here and not in hexbear straddling the line and wasting their time? Also that screenshot doesn't say shut about anyone's potential political beliefs.
I love dunking on tankies as much as the next guy, but wtf is this misfire dude?
This meme brought to you by true French, Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Croatian, and Finish patriots.
Being a Nazi collaborator is not a contest or something you have to make a ranking. Either you are one or you are not.
OP ignoring actual nazi allies or they don't count since allies?
Like Italy or Japan or the French that sided with the nazis?
Please ignore the actual allies of the Nazis, we have propaganda to push!
French were occupied, and had active resistance, with minimal compliance from Occupation regime. Ukraine had volunteer SS divisions, with full throated ideological support of Naziism, ethnic cleansing massacres, and managing extermination camps.
Stalin's invasion of Poland was done under alliance (complicity of action in exchange for their inaction) with UK/France to protect from imminent NAZI/German expansion east of Poland, which still came. If countries making treaties/agreements with Hitler makes them German allies, then the major western European powers were also German allies no matter how fundamentally opposed they and USSR (core German Nazi ideology was anti-communist, with the Jewish problem incidental to they supporting any ideology other than nazi fascist oppression, of which communism was the leading ideological solution at the time) were in opposing/disapproving of Hitler.
The path of USSR/west alliance against Germany was already set, and it is simply pure anti-Russia demonism to continue to revise history today to pretend Nazi Germany and USSR were great friends.
French did still have the Vichy collaborators
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France
And if things has gone slightly differently in the USA we could have become the nazis greatest allies.
Of course OP doesn't actually care about anything of that just want to score internet points
if things has gone slightly differently in the USA we could have become the nazis greatest allies.
Tough call. Occupation became less popular with economic damage from tributes paid to Germany. "The conservatism" appeal always wanes when it is shown to be pure grift, and slogans shown to be empty criticisms of policy, even when the hate resonates people's internalization of the criticisms.
Idk, there were those who liked what they were doing in Germany at the time. Scary to think what would have happened if business plot worked or the pro nazi parties had won in elections then.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/11/trump-fdr-roosevelt-coup-attempt-1930s
Good detail. I understand your "If USA has taken a different turn" and the specific reference that would have shaped great depression into a greater oligarchist takeover of the country including full cancel of great new deal, and then an ideology suited to allying with Hitler.
OTOH, the US liberation of France was first and only motivated to get to Berlin to stop USSR from winning everything in Europe, or at least entirety of Germany. It seems beyond rationality that US would commit troops to support Axis powers, and it was Germany that declared war on US after US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour, which wouldn't have hapened if US provided moral cover for Germany policies. No matter how fascist US had become, about equal to French Vishy government maximum, isolationism would have prevailed, though perhaps less support for UK/France resistance would have helped Hitler on western front, with 0 impact on losses of the eastern front.
US fascist hegemony with very direct subjugation of NATO colonies today under Trump, is only possible, because the US fascist putch of 1933 failed, and the soft subjugation of post ww2 colonialism continued to Biden, to very extremist levels under Biden.
Oh damn it's almost like the allies refused to sign a deal with the USSR https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/026569149602600303
Ffs there are so many real reasons to criticise the USSR but the allies (non USSR allies) fucking suuuuuucked in ww2. Completely happy to abandon Slavs and Jews to the Nazi war machine in order to shore up their own positions. Arrogant as all fuck about their position, and extremely willing to forgive Nazis and collaborators afterwards.
What the fuck was the USSR meant to actually do? Fight Germany alone selflessly?
What the fuck was the USSR meant to actually do?
Not add "we get to invade Eastern Europe if we feel like it" as a clause in negotiations with the allies.
Very unserious.
Could they have been less self interested in some of the terms? Absolutely. Is there a single nation state that isn't self interested? no. Maybe that's why nation States are dogshit ways to organise.
The Polish government, trusting the British one, and choosing to believe that the soviet terms requiring permission to move armies through Poland were a prelude to invasion damned their own people to slaughter at the hands of the Nazis.
I'm sure the rich elites were trying to make the best decision for the citizenry, and not trying to save their own wealth. Government is typically so selfless afterall.
Ok so the USSR approaches Britain and France saying "jeeze, this Hitler guy who keeps talking about genocide is a bit spooky. Wanna do something about it?" and France and Britain are non commital because they think they'll be in a better position if they appease Hitler for a while longer.
Poland sinks it, because they're more freaked out about the USSR than the Nazis who literally want to work them to death as farm animals which is... wild. So the USSR ends up signing a NAP with Nazi Germany, the same stance that everyone not explicitly allied to the Nazis has, agreeing to let them kill whomever they like if only they do it in "their" borders.
Using the time bought they rapidly, and one notes here pretty brutually, industrialise. Fight the everliving shit out of the Nazis once they have an industrial base and support in a war against them (the original fucking goal of the tripple alliance talks). USSR solidiers spill the majority of blood in Europe, theirs and Nazis. They're not saints, it's an army.
After the war, when countries like France are busy forgiving police collaborators and giving them their jobs back, the soviets are killing a lot of Nazis.
Stalin sucked in so many real ways, the USSR failed the utopian vision it was founded on in so many real ways. Calling Stalin a Nazi collaborator is just fucking wild. The Nazis were very explicit in their plans to genocide Slavs, that is what triggered the initial talks. Nobody in the USSR was under any illusions as to where they stood with the Nazis, the brutual policies of rapid industrialisation and militarisation were a result of being abandoned by the rest of Europe because the fucking aristocracy running the horror show preferred Nazis to communists.
you make me fucking sick. at least we know what fucking choice YOU’LL make when trump comes knocking on your door to inform on your neighbors.
God damned I wish I had more room in my lemmy bio cause that is hysterical for so many reasons.
You don't need to jump between binary assessments of people like a demented lib.
Stalin Derangement Syndrome is important today to motivate hatred against Russia. Everyone loves Ukrainian nazis motivating/bussifying their citizens to the front lines, and everyone hates being called a tankie. So every lie/absurdity diminishing Stalin is useful in geopolitical demonism and diminishment against Russia. It helps the idiocracy stay moronic.
You heard it here first, @naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com hates the allies of WW2.
What can we expect from the guy who allowed Beria to carry out one of the biggest hunts on leftists in history?
P.S.: Let's not forget what they did to the Ukrainian anarchists.
spicy meme of the day
Seeing all the removed comments makes me smile lol
I find engaging with fascists tedious, but you do you, one supposes.
I could have made a grad account. I probably would have been happier on a grad account. Why did I ever delete my hexbear account?
sigh
I mean America isn't one person, so the meme still tracks. Whoever invented manifest destiny is definitely in the running though.
I mean America isn’t one person, so the meme still tracks.
"America allowed a controversial and counter-protested Nazi rally" doesn't really compare to "Stalin invaded a fourth of Europe in coalition with the Nazis"
Whoever invented manifest destiny is definitely in the running though.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that they could not have been Nazi collaborators, on account of the lack of Nazis at the time.
Oh look, „America first”-ers have arrived!
Volunteering for bans. America has many sins, which are freely discussed and memed about on this comm, but anyone who comes in to play "WHATABOUTISM" apologia for Nazi collaborators is not welcome.
It’s just that I can’t avoid seeing irony in Americans (or people overfocused on US) dismissing literally everyone to build their worldview around US faults.
I mean, take a look at dessailnes’ essays repository. The whole thing is built around US, and fuck anyone else who dares to exist in the real world, because only US and recognize adversaries of US matter, apparently.
The crux of people thinking fascism can be defeated by violence think WWII was an example of this. Not only did this not stop fascism, it exploded it. Now almost the entire world is fascist and they still somehow think violence is the answer.
Can I ask then, if you know of a time fascism was definitely defeated? Because if it's not by violence, I do not know of a time fascism has been defeated.
On a global scale, I think there's an argument to be made that the fight never ended at all.
But, on a local scale, Chile comes to mind. Pinochet was ousted democratically and the military dictatorship ended. But that was only really because Pinochet was willing to relinquish control (due to external factors mostly, not just some change of heart) which isn't exactly common for fascist and authoritarian leaders, so Im not sure if that example applies much generally.
It would probably be more accurate to say that Pinochet realized he did not have the requisite violence to crush the popular support arrayed against him - the military refused to back his proposal to hold onto power after losing the election, so he stepped down in the hopes (sadly successful) of avoiding a noose for his crimes against Chile.
Institutions - and popular support - matter even when violence is involved, or implicitly threatened.
Well, my belief is that it was never defeated and has become the dominant form of governance around the world.
Long before fascism existed, during the American Revolution we see how the wealthy oligarchy manipulated peaceful colonist into a violent revolution. Shortly after this the first President was sworn in who was a military commander and also one of the more corrupt people in US history.
We see the intersection of a controlled economy run by the wealthy for the wealthy combining with the military to create the first truly fascist nation. A nation that later went on to perpetrate a genocide.
You have to be able to separate propaganda from reality and it is not easy especially for me as I was indoctrinated into the cult of the US.
When you start seeing the government as an illusion to maintain control you begin to make sense of things like the US overthrowing countless democratic governments to install fascist leaders during the Cold war.
I'm trying to figure out what your basis can be for the claim then - if you don't know of an example of fascism being defeated, why are you so quick to rule out "fighting them"?
I hasten to add that I'm not saying WWII was a successful example, but let's be frank about the quality of our assertions.
I think you are caught up in romanticizing violence as a solution to problems. Violence creates new problems, it doesn't solve them. Also, violent pushback is exactly what fascism craves. It is like giving fascist what they want.
Fascism really can't exist without dealing with dissent violently. It is one of the things that makes them fascist. The founding fathers of the US murdered, committed arson against, and bombed colonist dissenters in violent suppression which was integral to their goal and ultimately lead to complete control.
I think another important thing to consider is the mindset of the person advocating violence. Obviously no one is saying to not defend yourself, but committing to violent acts to motivate change is rarely successful by itself. Having a violent element can certainly help with negotiations, but once violence is used it no longer is a bargaining chip.
A lot of people I talk to have the mindset that their ideology will rise up after they have burned down the system. So when the dust settles, so to speak, their "superior" beliefs will magically rise to the top.
I think this goes along with other flawed thinking like the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. This belays the fact that there is no good guy and the ones that murder people are also the only one left to write about the account. This is often phrased as the victor writes the history.
All of that makes sense. As long as there's room for the basic necessity of defending oneself, it feels like there's less daylight between our viewpoints than you're imagining - at least in practical terms. It becomes a matter of how best to defend against fascism.
For my part the strategy has been to build a new life as far away from the US as feasible. The work has not been easy and the solutions have not been ideal, but I feel it does have the moral purity you were hoping to convince me of.
I feel privileged to have the option not to do any actual fighting, yet, but a part of me cannot help but wonder what hope we have as a species if you're right - can enough of us be wise, gentle, brave, and resilient enough for a true and lasting peace to take hold? We live in strange times but that might be the strangest thing of all, if I lived to see it.
Defending yourself is a natural right for sure. Not really sure how close our viewpoints are, but I would gather we are more alike than different.
I think getting away from the US is reasonable if that is what you choose to do. God knows I have wanted to leave it many times in my lifetime!
The battle for the human mind will continue as always. The best defense is critical thought.
As far as everyone else? Well, the world has gotten a lot better for a lot of people. Billions more have access to fresh water and electricity. War is down and so is crime across the board in all countries.
Things aren't that bad and perhaps that is what ideologically many people can't handle. There is no doubt the US is the biggest and most powerful fascist nation ever. It is not a new thing either.
Knowing this can help inform your decisions and save yourself from being confused why your country does what it does. I will join you in hoping for the best. Strange times indeed.
What a bizarre view of world history.
You have not studied the revolutionary period of the US critically. If you did, you would.see our modern interpretation is based purely on propaganda.
Long before fascism existed, during the American Revolution we see how the wealthy oligarchy manipulated peaceful colonist into a violent revolution. Shortly after this the first President was sworn in who was a military commander and also one of the more corrupt people in US history.
We see the intersection of a controlled economy run by the wealthy for the wealthy combining with the military to create the first truly fascist nation
Is not critical so much as it is the mirror image of a caricature of nationalistic hagiography.
You have to go back and read primary sources of civilians at the time who were not wealthy land owners to see the reality. This is the foundation of a critical analysis.
This is not about a patriotic re-envisioning centuries later. This was cold and calculated propaganda used to manipulate people at the time. A great example of this is the Boston Massacre which was used as a rallying cry against British oppression.
You see the corruption was there from the very start. The lies, hyper nationalism, military conquest, violent suppression of dissent, victimhood, etc. They had already checked off all the boxes of fascism before it was even a concept.
You have to go back and read primary sources of civilians at the time who were not wealthy land owners to see the reality.
Except when they disagree with your campist analysis, at which point they're to be rejected out of hand as simply fooled by the propaganda, of course.
I have read them and you haven't so I suppose you will have to research it yourself or take my word about it. Let's just say you are not at the level I am on this topic.
On a personal note, you act like a pompous asshole. Is that on purpose?
I have read them and you haven’t so I suppose you will have to research it yourself or take my word about it. Let’s just say you are not at the level I am on this topic.
Lol
Fantastic assumption.
On a personal note, you act like a pompous asshole. Is that on purpose?
Lord. What irony.
You forget that, contrary the the four-power pact or the German-French non-aggression pact, the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was a military alliance, in which both parties divided eastern Europe between themselves. There's a big difference between a non-agression pact and an alliance…
Brace yourself, .ml Brigade is comming
top 3 comments