• volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    the communist still considered the SPD to be the bigger threat and refused to march with them

    …which was confirmed when they agreed with the Nazis… And when they collaborated with the Freikorps to crush, torture, and murder the communists.

    And the SPD of the 1930 were by no means “liberals”. They were further to the left than any democrat has ever been.

    Go ask Rosa Luxembourg, leader of communists in Germany and murdered at 47 at the order of SPD, how progressive and left the SPD was. “Left is when you agree to murder and torture communists”. Fucking revisionists man

    • Belastend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      They agreed with Hitler? They were the only faction voting against him during the Gleichschaltungkrise.

      “Left is when you agree tp torture and murder communists”. So we both agree that the Stalinist Sovietunion and the KPD, which allied themselves with them arent left?

      No, both SPD and KPD were way to the left of all pther political parties and had they banded together, like they did during the Kappputsch, my homecountry wouldnt have been destroyed and 60 Million People would probably still be alive. After every other institution failed Germany, these two failed them in conjunction by not even trying to organize a joined force.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        So we both agree that the Stalinist Sovietunion and the KPD, which allied themselves with them arent left?

        One country ended up with Nazis. The other ended up defeating the Nazis. I’d say the Bolsheviks did a better job, didn’t they? The fact that there was oppression against Mensheviks and SRs in the context of a civil war, doesn’t mean they’re anticommunists, they didn’t quite literally enable the Nazis in order to murder the ones who were more communist than them, but defeat them instead.

        Want to find the blame for Nazism in Germany? The fault is primarily of Nazis, and then of Nazi enablers, and then of anti-communist leftists.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          The other ended up defeating the Nazis. I’d say the Bolsheviks did a better job, didn’t they?

          Uh. The Bolsheviks actively collaborated with Hitler and the Nazis, right up until Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets carved up Poland between themselves and Germany, and tried to invade Finland (Winter War, Continuation War), which is why the Finns ended up allying with the Nazis after Operation Barbarossa.

          • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Got it bro, the actual Nazis aren’t the Nazis, neither the ones who eliminated the most radical oppositors to Nazism, but actually the ones that died 26+mn of trying to fight them. God, you anti-communist revisionists are exhausting.

            The Bolsheviks actively collaborated with Hitler and the Nazis, right up until Operation Barbarossa

            Ugh, not this Nazi talking point again… The Soviet Union pursued for all the 30s a policy called “collective security”, in which it desperately tried to achieve mutual-defense pacts with England, France and Poland because the soviets knew that their 15-year-old nation which had only just started industrializing since the end of the feudal and backwards Russian Empire, didn’t have a chance alone against the Nazis with their 150 year long history of industry (as would be seen later with the USSR suffering 26+mn deaths during the war, in places like Belarus 1 in 4 people died). The USSR wanted these mutual defense agreements to the point of offering to send 1 million soldiers to France and England if they agreed to mutual defense… which France, England and Poland denied because they thought Nazis would attempt their declared goal of eliminating communisnm and massacring the “slavic untermenschen”. After this was denied and it was obvious that the west would rather see the USSR invaded than reach a mutual defense agreement, they did the only possible course of action: delaying the war as much as possible to prepare for it and industrialize a bit more. That’s where the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact takes place, not before a decade of exhausting every possible negotiation route with France and England in opposition to Nazism.

            The fact that the USSR then proceeded to (rather bloodlessly, around 50k deaths overall, very comparable to the oppression within the USSR itself) invade Poland, has to do with the USSR not trusting the Polish government. Why? In 1917, the Bolshevik revolution drafted an unprecedentedly progressive constitution which granted the right to self-determination and lawful secession to all peoples of the former Russian Empire. That’s how many countries such as Finland or Poland suddenly gained independence lawfully and peacefully in a never-before-seen act of respect of the right of self-determination. What did Poland immediately proceed to do? Become fully nationalist, ignore the right to self-determination of other peoples, and invade Ukraine (and later the USSR) in an attempt to gain territories they considered theirs by historical right. When they had conquered a good chunk of modern Ukraine and Belarus, the Polish Government decided it was a good idea to start a war against the USSR, since the USSR was plunged deep into a civil war and didn’t have many resources or troops to defend itself, and some conquests and victories could grant them a positive peace agreement which granted the territories the Polish Nationalists considered theirs (while ignoring the right to self-determination that the Bolsheviks had granted them less than two years earlier). Poland was also happy to make peace and appeasement treaties with Nazi Germany as long as they could also get some territorial gains from Czechoslovak land.

            Similarly, Finland in 1917 after gaining independence, was plunged into a civil war between communists and whites, which the latter won and proceeded to imprison communists in Finland who had supported the Reds, around 80k of which some 12k died (funny how nobody talks about that). The USSR had reasons to suspect of a possible alliance between the Finnish government and the Nazis, and proceeded to invade Finland. After the failure of the invasion, as you said, Finland joined the Nazis.

            Blaming the USSR for entering a non-aggression treaty with the Nazis, when all western nations had done it, and after 10 years of the USSR trying to make mutual defense agreement with Poland, England and France, is at best ignorant, and at worst purposefully misinforming with an agenda. The USSR had reasons to suspect of Poland and Finland (especially given its history of constant betrayals by all European powers since the October Revolution, with 14 countries sending troops to aid the Tsarist loyalists against the Bolsheviks) and, while outright invasions may not be justified, it could all have been prevented if the western powers had actually agreed to fight nazism. It’s absolutely nuts to blame the USSR and call them “collaborators with Nazis” given the historical background of the two decades before the war, especially the latter.

            • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              rather bloodlessly, around 50k deaths overall,

              Wut.

              50,000 deaths is ‘rather bloodlessly’? And since that’s comparable to oppression within the USSR, it’s not that bad?

              while outright invasions may not be justified,

              Correct. That, right there, is the most important point you’ve made. They collaborated with Nazis to carve up territories, and were then shocked when the Nazis turned on them. As far as the appeasement pacts made with Nazi Germany by France, England, et al., there’s very, very good reasons why the Vichy gov’t and Quisling are viewed so negatively by everyone that isn’t an apologist.

              • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Good job evading the uncomfortable 90% of my comment. Since we’re at that point, I will proceed to evade 100% of yours, seeing how you’re not interested in discussing actual facts such as the reasons for the USSR to make a non aggression treaty with the Nazis after a decade of systematic rejection of military alliances by Poland, England and France.