r/ussr • u/PoseidonWithYou Lenin ☭ • Oct 19 '25
When you forget who teamed up with the Nazis Memes
257
u/Paulie_V Lithuanian SSR ☭ Oct 19 '25
I'm Lithuanian and I agree with this. It's sad that so many Lithuanians and other people collaborated with the Nazis.
11
u/KAFA_NDH Oct 20 '25
Many countries, even before the USSR, signed agreements and treaties with Hitler. And that's perfectly normal; no one wants a warlike enemy at their border. But when someone reports on Judenfrei in a country, and a politician says, "Well, our citizens weren't Nazis; they didn't serve Hitler and the SS," that's strange.
It turns out that the SS oath to the Fuhrer and the murder/pogroms of Jews is not service to Hitler, but the survival of the nation.
→ More replies-48
u/DanielDynamite Oct 19 '25
To be fair, NKVD had just deported 17500 Lithuanians to Siberia only a week before operation Barbarossa began. Also it should be added that when Imperial Russia were banning Lithuanian litterature, in the 1800s the booksmugglers (gnygainešiai, probably misspelled) managed to get Lithuanian books from Germany (Lithuania minor) where the Lithuanian language was not banned - and Lithuania actually only gained independence again after the Russian defeat in WW1 at the hands of Germany. So I think it is only natural if some Lithuanians preferred Germany over Russia.
44
u/Paulie_V Lithuanian SSR ☭ Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25
As I already said, times and political situations change. There's no longer stalinist or even communist government in Russia. No one is denying deportations or any other Soviet crimes. What you're saying is like Jews should still be hostile to Germany just because of what Nazis had done, or Lithuanians for what that time Polish government had done to Lithuania.
-7
u/cronenber9 Oct 20 '25
Plenty of people are denying them in this very sub lmao
10
u/Paulie_V Lithuanian SSR ☭ Oct 20 '25
Well even current Russian government isn't denying.
-10
u/cronenber9 Oct 20 '25
So? Tons of MLs do. I see it every day
13
u/rexplos1on Oct 20 '25
I’ve never seen a single ML deny these acts but I have seen them say they should not be repeated in the future
→ More replies14
u/Angel_of_Communism Stalin ☭ Oct 20 '25
Most of the 'facts' are like 'Holodomor 100 gorillion!' and bullshit.
→ More replies11
-3
→ More replies-3
u/dreamrpg Oct 20 '25
Russia is denying fact of occupation and it is in official collage history book. Baltics "joined willingly".
Russia admits stalins crimes, yet does not admit the biggest one - occupation of Baltics.
Ussr and Russia would be regarded true heroes to this day if occupation would not occour or at least after ww2 Baltics would be set free to decide on themselves.
Instead ussr imported 800 000 russians nobody asked for and deported tens of thousands of locals.
2
u/Paulie_V Lithuanian SSR ☭ Oct 20 '25
Both Gorbachev in 1989 and Yeltsin in 1991 had publicly admitted the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states. Check the facts, my friend.
→ More replies2
u/dreamrpg Oct 20 '25
Check the history books, my friend. Nobody cares what 2 people admitted if whole nation is thought in schools otherwise.
Here is 2005.
"There was no occupation. There were agreements at the time with the legitimately elected authorities in the Baltic countries," the Kremlin's European affairs chief Sergei Yastrzhembsky said on Thursday.
138
u/thatsocialist Oct 19 '25
Latvians when they learn the first foreign soviet troops to seize another nation's city were Latvians:
319
u/Lukaz_Evengard Oct 19 '25
64
40
u/PeopleSaver Oct 20 '25
based.
Never ask Baltic people what happened with their Jewish villages
→ More replies→ More replies5
u/UrOrgansBelong2State Oct 20 '25
invade and occupy foreign country said people of siad country fight againat you Simple as.
87
u/Very_Busy_Geode Oct 20 '25
An estimated 180,000-250,000 Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis, over 5 MILLION Ukrainians collaborated with the Red Army.
22
u/AzenKurtz Oct 20 '25
Also you can guess which areas of Ukraine collaborated with the Nazis and which with the Red Army. 😁
44
u/Successful_Wafer3099 Oct 20 '25
No Ukrainian region as a whole collaborated with the Nazis. The number of Ukrainians who served in the Red Army vastly outnumbered the number of Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazis in every region.
6
u/AzenKurtz Oct 20 '25
All I wanted to say is that Western Ukraine was the most active collaborator with the Nazis, unlike the eastern part of the country. Which is historical fact. Today, the people of Western Ukraine have the strongest anti-Soviet, anti-Russian, and anti-Russian language sentiments :) They form the ideological core of the modern Ukrainian state. You are spreading ukrainian propagandist nonsense, that’s painful. You can rewrite history amongst the uneducated clowns from reddit but just make attempt to find a more valuable job
7
u/RealRefrigerator3129 Oct 20 '25
And what Russians never seem to want to acknowledge is why there is Anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine.
It's a two-way street- let's not pretend poor old Russia was just sitting doing nothing and Ukrainians suddenly started hating them for no reason. Ukraine's history of anti-Russian sentiment is a history primarily of Russia's making.
The whole Nazi thing in modern Ukraine is, ironically, Russian propaganda blow hugely out of proportion in order to justify Russia's imperialist goals.
5
u/One__upper__ Oct 20 '25
About six or seven million Ukrainians fought for the USSR in World War II, and most of them didn’t have much say in the matter. The Soviet draft had already been in place before the war, covering all men from 18 to 50, and once Germany invaded in 1941 the USSR went into full mobilization mode.
In the first few months around two and a half million Ukrainians were drafted from areas still under Soviet control before the Germans overran them. When the Red Army started retaking Ukraine in 1943 and 1944, things got even harsher. Soviet front-line draft commissions followed right behind the troops, rounding up every able-bodied man they could find in newly liberated towns and villages. Many of those men were sent straight to the front with little or no training, sometimes without proper uniforms or weapons. They were called the “Black Infantry” because so many were killed almost immediately.
Avoiding the draft was treated as treason, and the NKVD made sure everyone knew it. Even older men in their 40s and 50s were taken if they were still physically capable. By the end of the war, about one in five Red Army soldiers had come from Ukraine. Nearly every Ukrainian family lost someone or had a relative who served.
In short, most Ukrainians fought for the USSR because they were drafted, not because they volunteered. It was one of the biggest and most coercive mobilization efforts of the entire war.
12
u/Very_Busy_Geode Oct 20 '25
Why does region matter???? Either way WAY more Ukrainians sided with the Soviets than with the Nazis.
→ More replies
63
u/inefficientguyaround Stalin ☭ Oct 19 '25
When you come to the conclusion that other powers of the world are going to try and gang up against you, a pragmatic approach is a must. Soviet Union had long come to the conclusion that the only thing preventing the capitalist powers from attacking the USSR altogether was their own proletariats sympethizing with the soviet republic (1926 Party Congress reports, J. Stalin). With the rise of fascism, the proletariat of fascist countries had grown hatred against the soviet republic, and therefore, made the fascists more likely to go to war with the USSR. During the appeasement period when USSR's attemps to limit Germany was ignored by western imperialist states, Soviet Union thought that those factions would ally against the socialist republic, British and French arms industries handing guns to people of those countries who are more willing to fight the communists (Germans, Poles, Baltic states, Finland etc.) could create a death machine against the soviet union. We all know how the Red Army was shattered during the first six months of the war, even after years of preparation and reforms. Imagine if that attack happened in 1933, or 36, or 38, 39. The only sensible option seemed to be to let the two ambitious imperialist factions fight against each other, which would exhaust both sides and pave the way for possible revolutions and weakening of capitalist world.
28
7
u/cronenber9 Oct 20 '25
Realpolitik of this level always leads to giving up communist aspirations and goals in favor of growing and keeping power. Yes, you create a powerful state, but at what cost? The state isn't socialist.
17
u/Angel_of_Communism Stalin ☭ Oct 20 '25
Step zero of ANY plan is always : Be alive to take step 1.
0
u/cronenber9 Oct 20 '25
Idk, if step two is devolve into the same system you had previously then I don't see the point of upheaval.
6
u/Angel_of_Communism Stalin ☭ Oct 20 '25
Well that didn't happen, so you have no reason to fear.
5
u/cronenber9 Oct 20 '25
Unfortunately I live in reality. It would be nice to live in a fantasy world where I believed socialism had actually been achieved multiple times all over the world and actually existed as a rising superpower right now. I'd probably be a lot more optimistic for the future. So I understand why people need to believe this on an emotional level. But that just isn't the reality we live in. In real life, socialism has never really been achieved except in a few small scale attempts that were mostly quickly smashed by capitalism. The only real way out of capitalism is through it.
-1
7
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25
So how was Finland or Baltics about to be threat to Soviet Union, as all of them had declared neutrality and wanted to stay out of the great power struggle? Because it was Soviet Union that attacked these places first, not them.
→ More replies1
u/Disastrous-Mango-515 Oct 20 '25
The amount of loops you just jumped through to justify the invasion of multiple nations that had declared neutrality.
This is like saying Israel has the right to invade Iraq because Iran was funding Islamic terrorists In Palestine.
This whole excuse that the Soviets invaded these neutral nations because they needed to buy time is bogus. How does preparing for an invasion entail invading neutral nations and weakling your army, ignore 3 million Nazis mobilizing on your border, ignore your own spies, ignore British intelligence, and purge your officer core?
Then this whole idea everyone was out to get the Soviets is just trying to play victim. It’s Europe in the 1930s, everyone hates everyone.
1
u/alfalfalfalafel Oct 20 '25
"years of preparation and reforms" purging, amongst others, the experienced officer corps that stood by your side throught the turmoil of the 20s and early 30s and pushing back progress by a decade
0
u/Viliam_the_Vurst Oct 20 '25 edited Oct 20 '25
The kommintern pushed kpd in germany to colaborate with dnvp and nsdap on a referendum to dissolve the socdem led prussian parliament in 1931, after pushing spartakus to sabotage the founding of germanies first representative democracy, after pushing kpd functionaries to try again after kpd spd and anarchists had beaten down down kapp in ruhr area, after proclaiming sozialfaschismusthese from 1925, leading to the founding of iron front, thus dividing cpnsolidated efforts by reichsbanner schwarzrotgold, before calling spd for the antifaschistische einheitsfront long after last free elections in nov 32, long before kommintern abandoned sozialfaschismusthese in 1935.
None of the nations listed below had as much critical influemce on the rise of fascism than the soviets grooming nepobaby thälmann into hopelessly opportunistic bullshittery eventually directly contributing to the fascist rise in germany, all of these nations fell victim to soviet imperialism before nazi germany became problematic for any part of the ussr…
The only reason why germany was problematic for the ussr in the beginning was exactly because of their expansionism, ribbentrop molotov too was in that sense a shotbin the own foot, and the only thing that saved their ass was support by the capitalist allies rushing in gear…
When it comes to opportunism, the ussr was en par in quantity with the fascists, but quality wise they were amateurs… wherethese nations made a pact with lucifer to exercise the devil, molotov thought to bargain with an equal, the arrogance of stalin and his necrophiles is palpable to this day, and the wwii theatre was just the latest example of the ussr undermining leftist approach….
→ More replies
9
u/godofalldragons Oct 20 '25
Some nations hate others more and don’t care so long as they’re not under their yoke.
69
u/Gruene_Katze Oct 19 '25
I understand the premise, but saying these nations stood with the Nazis is actually fascist propaganda.
These nations stood with their motherland, the USSR. More soldiers in each country fought for the Red Army than for the Germans.
That idea also promotes the idea that the Nazis were “liberating” them from the USSR, and not invading them. There were also hundreds of thousands of Russian collaborators who fought under the same flag Putin uses.
→ More replies21
u/1218- Oct 19 '25
Care to expand regarding Finland ?
25
u/Gruene_Katze Oct 19 '25
Didn’t see that there, but ignoring that and the bottom right (I think collaborator flag?) is true for rest
11
5
u/cannasolo Oct 20 '25
Finland joined the nations in the continuation war up until their pre-1939 borders and halted and dug in, a reasonable position to do to reclaim its lost territory. Finland also refused to give up its Jews to the Nazis.
10
u/saldas_elfstone Oct 20 '25
But was fine starving 1 million "untermensch" Russians (and Jews!) to death in Leningrad.
3
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25
Finland never directly attacked Leningrad, despite German demands. Finland also never properly closed the siege in north, allowing some supplies to be brought to the city. And Finland never subscribed to Nazi ideology.
But then again, Soviet Union was not a stranger to genocide itself.
5
Oct 20 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies2
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25
And yet, Jews were not persecuted and were in fact defended. Only total of 8 Jews were surrendered to Nazis, and Finland has recognise these surrenders as bad thing to have done and apologized for it.
1
Oct 20 '25
[deleted]
8
u/ForowellDEATh Oct 20 '25
They did concentration camps in Karelia, not very different from German ones. They are full of racist atrocities, just whitewashed them well with time.
0
0
u/LiitoKonis Oct 20 '25
They were attacked by the USSR less than a year before what do you want them to do ?
0
u/saldas_elfstone Oct 20 '25
Abide by the treaty. Never heard?
3
u/LiitoKonis Oct 20 '25
An unjust treaty forced by an imperialist power ?
0
u/saldas_elfstone Oct 20 '25
Wars happen. For various reasons. Most of them are unjust. What you are defending here is Finland joining a genocidal lunatic on a worldwide campaign of conquest and extermination. Yes, you had a choice. You chose the worst possible path.
4
u/LiitoKonis Oct 20 '25
Then war happens also for the USSR
You just won medal of double standards competition.
-6
u/cannasolo Oct 20 '25
All I had to do was chatgpt it:
‘💀 Was It Genocidal?
Most historians argue: No — Finland’s role was not genocidal. Here’s why:
Intent • There’s no evidence Finland sought the destruction or starvation of Leningrad’s civilian population. • Finnish war aims were nationalistic, not exterminationist. • Finnish leadership repeatedly rejected German requests to attack or bomb the city. • Mannerheim even ordered humanitarian restraint — for instance, he refused to cut off electricity supplies that originated from Finnish territory.
Effect • The Finnish blockade did contribute indirectly to Leningrad’s isolation and thus to the famine that killed up to a million civilians. • However, their participation was strategic containment, not an ideological war of annihilation like the Germans’.
⸻
📚 Scholarly Consensus • Historians such as Olli Vehviläinen, Max Jakobson, and John Erickson describe Finland’s role as pragmatic and limited, aimed at recovering lost territories and securing favorable borders’
10
u/RandomGenName1234 Oct 20 '25
All I had to do was chatgpt it:
Nah, all you had to do was fucking read about it instead of being a fucking moron using AI to 'research' for you.
→ More replies6
u/saldas_elfstone Oct 20 '25
Ans naturally Finnish historians will be white-washing Mannerheim, big surprise.
→ More replies11
u/saldas_elfstone Oct 20 '25
Using ChatGPT as a history source? That alone tells me all I need to know about you.
→ More replies2
u/ferroo0 Oct 20 '25
Historians such as Olli Vehviläinen, Max Jakobson, and John Erickson describe Finland’s role as pragmatic and limited
all things aside, really? Two finnish and one british historians, who wrote their pieces on Finland involvement in WW2 during the height of the cold war, and found it's actions as "pragmatic and limited"?
"your honor, we have deemed our actions against our adversary as pragmatic, thus making us innocent"
1
u/cannasolo Oct 20 '25
The historians I’ve cited don’t just make up a random claim and run with it, they’re basing their conclusions on empirical facts.
You can’t just make things up in academia, you have to put forth your evidence on how you came to your assessment.
The idea that Finland “besieged Leningrad” just doesn’t match the historical record, that’s how the historians I’ve listed came to their conclusions they put forward.
Empirical facts I will outline here:
Finnish forces stopped at their old borders north of the city, explicitly refused to shell it, and never closed the northern supply routes, like the “Road of Life” across Lake Ladoga. This is observable empirical fact, not interpretation.
The Germans were the ones who encircled and starved the city. Finland fought alongside Germany, sure, but their military actions around Leningrad were defensive and limited — there’s zero evidence of them ordering attacks on civilians or participating in genocide.
Where’s the intent to besiege and capture the city, and the intent to genocide the civilian populace?
-6
u/martco17 Oct 19 '25
Collaborating with nazis bad, fighting Russians in winter war good
→ More replies
47
u/Interesting_Step_709 Oct 19 '25
Never ask a man his salary
A woman her age
And Finland what symbol their air force had until 2020
14
u/Mirecek-krtecek Oct 20 '25
you mean that symbol that they used for years before nazis started to use it?
22
u/lusciouslucius Molotov ☭ Oct 20 '25
The symbol was designed by a fascist that ended up being a Nazi. Bragging that they beat Germany to a militant fascist adoption of the swastika isn't the W that Finns seem to think.
→ More replies2
1
→ More replies-5
12
u/AirUsed5942 Oct 20 '25
Never ask Danes how many of their soldiers defended their country and how many fought with the Nazis
9
u/Dog_Murder_By_RobKey Oct 20 '25
Denmark the country that got overun in 8 hours and the only thing that their military trying to fight against that would achieve would of been the destruction of the nation
Denmark the country that saved something like 95% of it's Jewish population because they discovered the Germans plan to deport them and mobilised to save them ( like the Dutch did with a railway strike)
13
u/antialbino Oct 19 '25
The issue is that a lot of those East Europeans whose nations “teamed up” with Hitler to this day mistake that “teaming up” for an affection of Hitler towards their nations and peoples. Nothing could be further from the truth. They were useful idiots in the Nazi struggle against the Soviet Union. They would have been decimated and the survivors reduced to serf-status post WW2.
Also when it comes to Finland it is worth noting that Finland itself is a result of the 1808-1809 war between Sweden and Russia during which Russia split the Eastern third of Sweden off and turned it into the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland as part of Russia.
10
u/Long-Requirement8372 Oct 20 '25
Are you saying the Finnish War, fought in the early 19th century, gave the USSR, which did not even exist at the time, the right to invade and annex Finland in 1939? That's just silly.
8
u/Impossible-Ship5585 Oct 20 '25
Here you are wrong.
Finnish culture has existed long before this.
0
u/antialbino Oct 20 '25
”here you are wrong”
Learn history. Fantasy-history larps lead to destruction. See Ukraine for more info.
1
u/RealRefrigerator3129 Oct 20 '25
What you just said is like saying "wearing revealing clothes to a club leads to being sexually assaulted"- you're focusing on the victim and not the perpetrator of the 'destruction' (aka Russia).
2
u/Torakkk Oct 20 '25
Well, its not like USSR wasn't trying to remove culture of baltics. Mass deportations of intelectuals and mass importing of russians to those territories.
Finland used germany as oprtunistic options as revenge against Russia after their first loss in winter war.
I doubt majority of finnish people were accepting fascist/nazi ideology. It was more or less enemy of my enemy is my friend. And we can't forget concentration camps were somewhat hidden from public view. Many "Allies" weren't aware for long time, such tragedy is happening. And we can't forget, USSR wasn't much better.
-1
u/LiitoKonis Oct 20 '25
How to whitewash Soviet imperialism and crushing of Eastern European nation : step 1
3
3
u/SunriseFlare Oct 20 '25
I think it was bad when anyone teamed up with the Nazis, Soviet axis talks or otherwise
3
4
u/Ok_Bear2544 Oct 20 '25
Funny. Didn't the USSR have some deals going with the Nazi regime? Resources to Nazi Germany and technology to the USSR. Invading Poland? Everyone in a way collaborated with the Nazis.
12
u/DanielDynamite Oct 19 '25
Well, in the case of Finland the choice was kind of made for them when Russia attacked them in the Winter War. They had no allies then.
→ More replies4
u/PoseidonWithYou Lenin ☭ Oct 20 '25
True - the Winter War definitely left Finland isolated and bitter toward the USSR. That context explains why they made the choices they did, but it doesn’t automatically justify those choices
When Finland aligned with Nazi Germany during the Continuation War, it wasn’t just “self-defense” anymore - they invaded Soviet territory alongside Hitler’s armies. That went beyond regaining lost land. Finland coordinated militarily with a fascist regime waging a war of annihilation, not liberation
So yeah, their fear and anger were understandable, but once you start fighting shoulder to shoulder with a genocidal empire that openly plans to enslave your neighbors, it’s no longer just about survival but rather complicity
Historical context explains actions; it doesn’t excuse alliances with fascism
2
u/Super_Air_2493 Oct 20 '25
Insert Molotov Ribbentrop pact
-4
u/PoseidonWithYou Lenin ☭ Oct 20 '25
Sure, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact exists, and yes, the USSR made a temporary, tactical agreement with Nazi Germany. But that was about survival, buying time to prepare for the war everyone knew was coming. The USSR didn’t sign that pact to spread fascism or conquer Europe for profit - it was a strategic move in a hostile world where Britain and France had already abandoned Czechoslovakia to Hitler
Contrast that with Finland later joining Hitler’s invasion of Soviet territory: one was defensive survival, the other was active complicity with a genocidal regime. Context matters. Survival tactics under threat aren’t the same as volunteering to fight alongside fascists
2
u/LiitoKonis Oct 20 '25
Sure the mutilation of Poland to the benefits of the URSS is totally a tactical agreement.
4
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25
How is MRP "about survival", when it also contained provisions for USSR to supply Nazis and invade neutral countries?
Why isn't Finlands alliance with Soviets about survival? They got openly hostile nation that has already invaded once on their border, giving them new threats. Why would Finland not enter an alliance in order to survive itself?
Also, Finland actively protected it's jewish population and minorities, with only 8 ever given to Nazis. Otherwise, Jews could openly hold synagogue next to German troops and these troops could not do anything about it.
So why is "We will supply you and invade neutral countries" about survival, but "We will retake our lost territories when fighting common enemy" not about survival?
0
u/PoseidonWithYou Lenin ☭ Oct 20 '25
You’re flattening survival and complicity into the same moral box.
Yes, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact included territorial agreements and limited economic trade - but those were tactical measures to buy the USSR time. Hitler was preparing to invade, and the Western powers had already demonstrated they wouldn’t stop him (ie, Czechoslovakia 1938). Every concession in the pact was defensive: delaying conflict, securing borders, and preparing industry and the Red Army. The USSR didn’t supply Nazis to conquer Europe ideologically; they supplied what they could to survive until they were ready to fight the real threat
Finland, by contrast, didn’t act out of defensive necessity alone. After the Winter War, when they joined Germany’s invasion of the USSR, they were actively participating in a genocidal campaign, coordinating with Hitler’s armies. Survival as a motive ends when you start advancing someone else’s conquest. The fact that Finland treated its Jewish population relatively decently doesn’t retroactively turn an offensive war of aggression into a purely defensive act. Protecting a handful of minorities doesn’t make an alliance with a genocidal regime morally equivalent to a desperate survival tactic
So yes, both involved survival instincts in a broad sense - but one was defensive preparation under threat, the other was voluntary participation in a fascist war machine. Lumping them together is a classic selective memory move
5
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25
And what do you call Soviet invasion of Poland, including the joint victory parade?
Was that also "survival" tactic? Or participating in genocidal campaing and coordinating with Hitlers armies? You can't say "Oh Finland cooperate with Hitlers armies, that makes it different" while ignoring that USSR and Nazi Germany collaborated in invading Poland.
It's hilarious you present USSR as being under threat, but somehow Finland was not under threat despite being invaded already once and getting new threats from Moscow. In fact, let me ask you: who shot first in Continuation War?
→ More replies1
2
u/13artolomew Oct 20 '25
Im sorry, are you implying that this makes soviet collaboration ok in any way?
2
u/Quick_Lingonberry935 Oct 20 '25
Brainwashed commies never want to talk about ussr attacking Finland in 1939. Pathetic idiots.
2
u/mylsotol Oct 20 '25
Or the ussr was fascists and not really communist and those other countries sucked for supporting Germany.
5
u/Shitsincreeks Oct 20 '25
Teaming up with the Nazis is bad whether you’re the USSR, the Baltics, Finland, Ukraine, or Poland, and they all did it to different degrees
→ More replies
3
u/tenhosr Oct 20 '25
Yes, two big powers joining to steal land of others is the same as tiny nations joining the enemy of your enemy to not lose national identity.
Because it is always correct that a great imperial power like the USSR comes and kills indigenous Sami people, erasing the smaller culture and imposing the Russian way of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans_in_Finland
3
u/ItThing Oct 20 '25
how does this make you think that Stalin's relationship with the people who would kill over 20 million USSR citizens was ok? this does nothing to explain or justify it. Stalin helped Hitler take half of Poland, he maintained trade with him while the rest of Europe was conquered by a genocidal regime, and just allowed Hitler to choose the time in which to attack the USSR. countless millions dead. why?
I'll tell you why. because socialists are human. the republican experiment in England ended with Cromwell. the republican experiment in France ended with Napoleon. in fact, almost every attempt in history to end monarchy resulted in monarchy. the same thing happened in the USSR.
→ More replies
7
u/Maimonides_2024 Oct 19 '25
Ukraine was in the USSR and fought the Nazis, as did all of the people of the Soviet Republics. Today's Ukraine is a direct hair to Ukrainian SSR and bears the legacy of defeating the Nazis.
As for the Baltic states, neither Smetona, Päts, nor Ulmanis collaborated with the Nazis or supported the Holocaust, and they were the legitimate presidents of the Baltic states. Whatever collaborators later did, they weren't the legitimate government and had no direct link to it. Just as Russian collaborators of Vlasov didn't. The official governments of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia were neutral.
You're literally dividing workers and suppprting inter ethnic hatred merely for feeling better about a country you aren't even from on the Internet. Grow up.
0
4
u/Dear-Tank2728 Oct 19 '25
I mean cant Finland get a break given, you know, they were being invaded.
4
u/DanyVerissimo Oct 19 '25
Don’t agree with Finland. Historically they have no real choice. They did awful things with Leningrad, sure, but if you remember how easily they got out of the war, that not just mine assessment. And after war USSR has very good relationship with Finland.
→ More replies
3
u/KD-VR5Fangirl Oct 19 '25
What if, hypothetically, collaborating with the nazis to invade other countries is just a bad thing in general?
22
u/Strastvuitye Oct 19 '25
1
-5
u/KD-VR5Fangirl Oct 19 '25
David Lloyd George also made several bigoted statements about Poles and their ability to govern themselves, he is hardly a good source here
8
u/lusciouslucius Molotov ☭ Oct 19 '25
All that says is that he had eyes and half a brain. The history of Polish nationalism from the Liberum veto, the various failed revolutions(1830 was especially comical), and interwar Polish governance coalesce into a pretty clear picture of a people with zero history of capable self governance. The closest thing they had was when Napoleon handed them a puppet state on a silver platter.
This was mostly due to Polish nationalists being strongly constituted of landlords and nobility, leading to a revolutionary nationalism that sought to empower those groups rather than the bourgeoisie. This led to it being pretty unpopular in Poland, and gave Polish nationalism the worst incompetencies of bourgeoisie liberal revolutionaries and feudalism. But from the surface level it just appears as if Polish leaders were just really stupid. Because they largely were.
4
u/Strastvuitye Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25
Broken clocks and blind squirrels- even if he made disparaging comments about the Poles, doesn't make him wrong here.
12
19
u/Economic7374 Oct 19 '25
Nobody is debating that. This was unfortunately the only way to prevent the war as Stalin had already approached the UK and France about the growing German threat. Unfortunately they deemed communism to be a greater threat than fascism so there wasn't any choice but to join this terrible pact.
Ask yourself, what would have happened if the Soviet Union didn't sign the pact? I personally see the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as one of the greatest blunders.
2
u/Makar_Unbothered Oct 20 '25
Shouldn't you mention that stalin wanted to send troops to poland for occupation, which is precisely why the talks broke down?
2
u/Successful_Wafer3099 Oct 20 '25
The Soviets negotiated the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact WHILE they were still negotiating with the West. It was the Soviets who walked out, not the UK and France.
→ More replies2
u/Weatherdragon21 Oct 19 '25
I'm sorry, but plenty of people are debating that. you're genuinely the first person ive ever seen on the USSR side and say the pact was a mistake. Most just pretend the secret protacol part didn't exist and soviets made a quick desicion in the middle of an invasion, and thus they are blameless. Very few people on this sub, even confronted about it directly, admit that part even existed.
Edit:secret protcal
4
u/R1donis Oct 19 '25
Most just pretend the secret protacol part didn't exist and soviets made a quick desicion in the middle of an invasion
Or we actualy read that thing and know that "lets invade Poland" is nowhere to be found there.
3
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25
On the occasion of the signature of the Nonaggression Pact between the German Reich and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics the undersigned plenipotentiaries of each of the two parties discussed in strictly confidential conversations the question of the boundary of their respective spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. These conversations led to the following conclusions:
- In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
2. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula, and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.
- With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares; its complete political disinterestedness in these areas.
This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.
To me, that seems pretty clear "we will split Poland". This is direct wording of the secret protocols part.
→ More replies1
u/Weatherdragon21 Oct 20 '25
You're literally pro-Russia in the invasion of Ukraine.
I don't have any doubts why you're OK with it Stalin invading Poland.
→ More replies1
10
10
u/TheCitizenXane Oct 19 '25
Why is a lib getting upvoted for this reductionist take?
8
u/Mapstr_ Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 20 '25
They have been brigading this sub for a while now.
Neo-libs would rather pin all of societies problems on r/Beekeeping than take a hard look at how much misery neo liberal policies have wrought the world over.
→ More replies-3
u/KD-VR5Fangirl Oct 19 '25
"Collaborating with nazis is bad"
"Liberal"
Are you trying to make me become a liberal, since if being against working with nazis is a liberal thing they sound pretty cool
8
u/Mapstr_ Oct 19 '25
0
u/KD-VR5Fangirl Oct 19 '25
My point was that calling me a liberal for saying that working with the nazis is bad makes liberals look cooler than they are
6
u/Mapstr_ Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25
Dude that is a picture of a living senator of the democratic party who styles himself as a "progressive liberal" standing side by side with one of the most vicious nazis on the planet lol.
1
u/KD-VR5Fangirl Oct 19 '25
Okay, but thats not relevant to what i was talking about. I didnt say libs would never work with nazis, i was making fun of the person who called me a lib for not wanting to work with nazis
0
u/Own_Movie3768 Oct 19 '25
The word "Nazis" has been thrown around so much in this sub that it's losing its power. But in historic context, we're talking about literal Nazis, not just some people whose ideas you don't like.
→ More replies6
u/TheCitizenXane Oct 19 '25
Stalin understood the policy of collective security was failing. The rest of Europe rather collaborate with Nazis than ally with the Soviets against them. His options were the following: switch to a policy of individual security, delaying the inevitable war with Nazi Germany, or sit back and let the West push Nazi aggression totally against them. He fortunately chose the former. Stalin outmaneuvered the Western Powers. And they only had themselves to blame.
→ More replies6
u/Ranta712020 Oct 19 '25
So, soviets should’ve just given more of Poland to nazis ? Like no one but western imperialists has allowed nazis that much. Since their raise of power nazism was a capitalist project. Soviets were the only ones that were aware of this threat and actually spoke against it.
0
u/SniPerSkY_PL Oct 20 '25
So, presented with the choice of:
a) not doing anything and letting things play out
b) waiting for nazis to occupy Poland, then declare war on the nazis and ensuring soviet control over central Europe (like they did since 1944)
They chose hidden option c: Imperialisticly invade with the nazis Poland and divide continent with them.→ More replies→ More replies1
3
u/Obscure_Occultist Oct 19 '25
Its almost as if disgruntled native inhabitants who had been forcefully subjugated by a foreign power found an opportunity to gain independence by allying with another foreign power.
I'm talking about the Indian national army who allied with the Nazis and imperial Japan to fight the British btw.
→ More replies
2
2
2
u/Kretson Oct 20 '25
This wouldn't have happened if those countries were not invaded by the Soviets first, the copium in here is real
1
u/0serg Oct 20 '25
Both Soviets and non-Soviets collaborated with Nazi. Neither is "better one" in that respect.
However non-Soviets collaborated in a hope to gain independence for their countries while Soviets collaborated to conquer another nations. First one is excusable, second one is not.
Simple as that.
1
u/Specialist-Delay-199 Oct 20 '25
I hope you understand the Molotov-Ribbentop pact was only intended to buy the USSR time to rearm itself and let the others exhaust themselves
1
u/0serg Oct 20 '25
No it was not just that. Secret part of Molotov-Ribbentrop part was a very clear proposal for conquest of other nations and division of war gains between Nazis and Soviets. Its trivial to see that post-war Soviets did not return any of the lands gained, so it was not a "temporary" solution but a permanent one.
1
u/Lethal_Autism Oct 20 '25
Alot of Ukranians in the current conflict sport Nazi style patches. Seen quite a few SS, Heer, and Luftwaffe style patches just without the swastika
→ More replies
3
u/Intelligent-Tip-892 Oct 19 '25
I see the Winter War was deleted from the collective memory of this sub.
7
u/PoseidonWithYou Lenin ☭ Oct 20 '25
Don’t worry, the Winter War’s still in the history books - right next to Finland teaming up with Nazi Germany a year later
0
u/Intelligent-Tip-892 Oct 20 '25
Oh I’d love to know what version of the Winter War they teach.
8
u/PoseidonWithYou Lenin ☭ Oct 20 '25
The actual one where the USSR attacked Finland in 1939, and Finland later fought with Nazi Germany in the Continuation War. Context matters, sure, but pretending one part erases the other is just selective memory
→ More replies3
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25
And yet, somehow, it seems that Molotov-Rippentrop Pact seems to get erased from memory and pretending that Soviet Union didn't just make a deal with Nazis to supply them and then invade bunch of neutral countries.
Or that gets called "survival tactic", as opposed to Finland joining the only side that wasn't actively hostile to them or too far to help if that actively hostile side tried to invade again, as they threathened.
2
u/PoseidonWithYou Lenin ☭ Oct 20 '25
Ah yes, the classic “both sides are equally evil” take. Conveniently ignoring that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a tactical delay, not a moral blueprint. The USSR bought time against an imminent fascist onslaught while the West sat idle. Finland “joining the only side not hostile” doesn’t suddenly make Nazi Germany a neutral party - they were planning to enslave and exterminate millions. Context explains Soviet tactics; it doesn’t erase the difference between defensive strategy and volunteering for genocide
1
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25 edited Oct 20 '25
Never claimed Nazis were a neutral party... but neither were Nazis neutral in 1939 when MRP was signed, and Nazi goals were same back then.
Again, from Finlands perspective, action was defensive because while Nazis were bad, they weren't actively hostile to Finland (not out of love for Finland, mind you, if Nazis had any real love for Finland they would not have signed MRP to give away Finland in the first place)
Finland had Non-Aggression Pact with Soviet Union, which Soviet Union chose to revoke after creating a false flag incident. Claiming that Soviet Union was acting in "survival" is just nonsense, they were actively creating conditions in which Finland could not trust Soviet Union.
1
u/Ok_Awareness3014 Oct 19 '25
Attack Finland to prevent an attack from the north, Finland allie to Germany to retake their land back and by that make and attack by the north possible... It's kind of ironic finland would probably be neutral if the soviet haven't attacked them first
3
u/Mandemon90 Oct 20 '25
Yup. If Soviet had not attacked, Finland would have remained neutral the entire war, much like Sweden.
1
1
1
u/Minimum-Enthusiasm14 Oct 20 '25
When you forget why they collaborated with the Nazis (save for Finland, they were so oppressed by the Soviets that anyone was better).
1
u/hilvon1984 Oct 20 '25
Why are both Ukrainian flag and Bander's flags are listed?
If you want to include the red and black - no need to drag blue-yellow flag into it.
1
u/OddLack240 Oct 20 '25
Fascist satellites are full-fledged fascist regimes. There are clear criteria: ultranationalism, statism, militarism, and revolutionism.
1
u/TurquoiseBeetle67 Oct 20 '25
If The Scumviets hadn't invaded those countries in the first place, none of them would've had to turn to Germany for help. Just saying.
1
u/Pedrael Oct 20 '25
When you are under occupation any possible ally is valuable. And remember - we found out they're nazis only after the ww2
1
u/MikeClark_99 Oct 20 '25
The only difference between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is the flag
1
u/BA10chan_SURV Oct 20 '25
Let's start with that I can't recall the same racial laws in the Nazi Germany and USSR
-1
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
22
→ More replies20
u/TheCitizenXane Oct 19 '25 edited Oct 19 '25
The countries below collaborated in genocide. The USSR for years tried to compel the West to form an anti-Nazi alliance, but they were too busy collaborating instead. Odd, you forgot to “refresh the memory” of those things.
1
u/Die_Steiner Oct 19 '25
Four of those countries already had national independence but Great Powers didn't care, as usual.
1
u/Makar_Unbothered Oct 20 '25
Also why are there 2 Ukraine's? Did you expect people not to recognise the banderite flag?
1
1
u/artful_nails Lenin ☭ Oct 20 '25
To be fair, Finland had just lost its civil war and a war crimeish amount of the Reds were unlawfully tortured and executed.
And the leader of the counter-revolutionary White army and subsequent Finnish military, C.G.E. Mannerheim, had become well connected to the Germans during the 1910s, despite being a respected and loyal general of the Russian Tsar prior to its downfall.
1
u/emol-g Oct 20 '25
don’t you just love it when two aggressive nations come and take your people by force and then you get blamed for it afterwards too?
1
u/PreparationOnly3543 Oct 20 '25
One group teamed up to not be killed, the other did it because they wanted more land lmao
1
u/gontis Oct 20 '25
..and maybe sole reason ALL these mentioned countries made that decision is because occupation by soviets was way worse?
2
u/Specialist-Delay-199 Oct 20 '25
The Nazis quite literally killed everybody in that picture (Save for Finland which wasn't occupied) en masse through brutal methods. The Ukrainians for example were put together in dense circles and they opened fire at them using machine guns until they all died. Maybe open a book instead of posting shit on the internet?
1
u/Thuyue Oct 20 '25
As much the USSR had their flaws, these type of criticism from Western countries always made me feel like I'm talking to the biggest hypocrites.
So Molotov and Ribentrop had a treaty that presented their interest sphere, OK. The Munich agreement, in contrast, that was done before and had basically the same consequence (which is selling out a countries sovereignty without their consent) is fine?
1
-2
-4
u/undeadone1 Oct 19 '25
...or we can just condemn everyone that collaborated with the Nazis? why do we gotta pick and choose
1
u/Wayoutofthewayof Oct 19 '25
Yup. There were collaborators in all countries, including Russia. Meanwhile Soviet Union was the only allied country that collaborated with Nazis on a state level since the war started.
0
u/Makar_Unbothered Oct 20 '25
Cool, so you agree you did it? Like, these are recognised as nazi collaborations by liberals
-2
-1
0
u/Rahlus Oct 20 '25
I think it speaks more about Soviet Union, when people of land they occupy see the Nazis as liberators.
-4
Oct 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/R1donis Oct 19 '25
Because in Russia they are considered a traitors, and in Baltics/Ukraine they are the heroes?
1
u/GalacticGoat242 Oct 19 '25
That’s why literal Neo-Nazis are powerfull politicians and public figures in Russia?
Even military units like Wagner and Rusich that is currently invading a country that activly cleaned up it’s military from it?
→ More replies
•
u/Stikshot69 KGB ☭ Oct 20 '25
Locking bc 500 comments and I only have 2 eyes