politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Timeline:
23 Aug 1939 - Germany and Soviet Union sign a non-agression pact
1 Sept 1939 - Germany invades Poland
3 Sept 1939 - France and UK declare war on Germany (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
17 Sept 1939 - Soviet Union invades Poland (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
10 May 1940 - Germany invades France (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
22 Jun 1941 - Germany invades the Soviet Union and the non-agression pact between the Soviets and Germans is terminated
No, you don't get to say countries like England "won’t do much to fight fascism", despite being at war with Germany for years, while praising the Soviets, despite having a non-agressin pact with Germany for those same years
It's not surprising Poland didn't want Soviet troops in their country, the Soviets literally invaded them shortly later.
Again, England and France declared war on Germany in 1939, and for those two years England was at war with Germany, the Soviets had a non-agression pact. No, you don't get to be "by far" the most of something when others beat you out by two years.
Correct, they were annexed into the Soviet Union. Much liberation by the Soviets there! These countries weren't free until FIVE DECADES LATER when the Soviet Union fell.
Germany and the Soviet Union literally agreed to partition Poland between the two of them as part of their non-aggression pact signed before either invaded Poland. Don't downplay what the Soviets did here.
France and the UK declared war on Germany in 1939, the Soviet Union had a non-agression pact with Germany for TWO MORE YEARS. Come now, claiming the Soviets were fighting against Nazism before England just makes you look bad. These are easy to look up dates.
I know you are bringing up the Spanish Civil War here, but that was vastly overshadowed by their non-agression pact and mutual invasion of Poland with Germany.
The overarching point here is you seem to be doing quite a bit of apologizing for the bad shit the Soviet Union did. It's quite honest to say the Soviets fought against the Germans in WWII, but it's not honest to say they were doing it before anyone else or to downplay them working with the Germans by mutually invading Poland. Both are true, and and honest look at history includes both the good things and the bad things the Soviet Union did in WWII.
Ok, I've read through your comment and I'm a bit disappointed. You're ignoring most of what I said, and your entire point is "but Poland, but Poland and but Poland".
Your timeline conveniently starts in 1939 and ends in 1941, and you made no mention whatsoever of the Litvinov doctrine I brought up which explicitly was "seeking a collective security agreement with France and England against Nazis" for the entire 30s. You just reject the Spanish civil war as a nothingburger as if it weren't the first antifascist war in Europe. You also don't mention the Munich Agreements and somehow disregard the fact that France and Poland signed them with Hitler.
Maybe it's because Poland participated actively in the Munich agreements and got part of Czech land? By your own logic, Poland made an unforgivable deal with Hitler when invading Czechoslovakia. No blame there? History starts in 1939?
Poland never belonged to the Soviet Union after the war, so your point is moot regarding Poland. As for Belarus and Ukraine, they respectively voted 83% and 71% IN FAVOR OF REMAINING IN THE SOVIET UNION IN THE 1991 REFERENDUM. What the hell are you talking about being free? Belarusian and Ukrainian people OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATICALLY DECIDED TO BELONG IN THE SOVIET UNION. Please, tell me, how were Ukraine and Belarus not free?! Catalonia, for reference, recently had an independence referendum in which 50% of the population voted to leave Spain and the promoter of the referendum is a political refugee in Brussels. Please tell me in which fucking way Ukraine or Belarus weren't free in the Soviet Union when they were two of the highest "yes" voters in the referendum.
You never addressed the public speeches by the leaders of France, USA and England admitting to what I'm saying. You never addressed the alternative to Eastern "Poland" (i.e. Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuanian territories) knowing that they would otherwise be invaded by Hitler, you never addressed the MILLION SOLDIERS that the Soviets offered and France rejected on exchange for a mutual defense agreement.
You simply ignored all of my comment, went on with the "but Motherboard-Ribbedcock" ignoring the history of the 10 previous years of consistent Soviet antifascist geopolitical position, and claim that the poor "Poles" (i.e. ethnic Ukrainians, Jews, Belarusians and Lithuanians) whose territories were returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian republics, were somehow oppressed Poles who somehow could have avoided Nazi genocide if it weren't for Soviet intervention both in 1939 and in 1941.
I honestly expected a bit more of good faith from the exchange instead of doubling down on narrowing history to a skewed version of one treaty and ignoring the DEMOCRATIC WILL OF TENS OF MILLIONS OF VOTERS in the 1991 referendum by calling them "non-free" in the Soviet Union. So much for freedom.
The core reason the joint German-Soviet Union invasion of Poland is relevant is it shows the Soviets working with the Nazis. You portray them as being the first and primary countries willing to fight the Nazis, yet they were literally partnering with the Nazis for years while others had declared war on them. It wasn't until Germany invaded the Soviet Union that the Soviets switched teams.
If that is a point we can't agree on, then there isn't much more going to happen here.
Edit: going to just post the timeline again:
23 Aug 1939 - Germany and Soviet Union sign a non-agression pact
1 Sept 1939 - Germany invades Poland
3 Sept 1939 - France and UK declare war on Germany (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
17 Sept 1939 - Soviet Union invades Poland (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
10 May 1940 - Germany invades France (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
22 Jun 1941 - Germany invades the Soviet Union and the non-agression pact between the Soviets and Germans is terminated
After the evidence I've shown you, calling it "invading Poland together with the Nazis" is honestly just lying. Ignoring that the territories returned were Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Belarusian for the overwhelming part is simply twisting history. It's not "innocent poles getting oppressed by soviets", it's Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians being saved from Nazi invasion by Soviets. Again, answer this one question: what was the alternative to Soviet occupation of Eastern "Poland". Please answer that.
You're dishonest by refusing to entertaining the idea that the Soviets, as stated by Churchill, Chamberlain and Roosevelt, were not "collabbing with the Nazis", but instead simply buying time to prepare for war. Evidence of the Soviet antifascist intervention on the opposite corner of the continent in the Spanish Civil War, the Litvinov doctrine, the collective security policy, pursued, the fact that the lands "invaded" weren't even Polish for the most part, the mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia that made them want to start a collective war against Nazis which France refused, or asking yourself what was the alternative to Soviet occupation of the territories of Eastern Poland, none of this is enough.
And it's not enough because you're dishonest with your approach, because your starting point is "USSR bad, how can I justify this", instead of "let's look at the facts and reach a conclusion". It doesn't matter to you that Ukrainians and Belarusians overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the Soviet Union, you'll still call them "unfree" because USSR bad. It doesn't matter that the USSR saved Europe from fascism at the horrible cost of 25mn deaths, USSR bad. It doesn't matter that literally every country in Europe had mutual nonaggression pacts with the Nazis at some point, history begins in 1939 and ends in 1941 because USSR bad. Munich Agreements don't matter, Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania doesnt matter, France rejecting to honor the Munich agreements doesnt matter, Spanish civil war doesn't matter. Nothing matters, except for a 2-year interval in which the USSR was not at war with the Nazis.
What a serious historical analysis. Good job.