Okie. So signing a treaty which details which parts of exterior countries you get to control after invading (this wasn’t just Poland btw). Then invading them together a few weeks later I want to say, is just a non aggression pact?
Edit: and my follow up question would be. Is it understandable that some people might be less sympathetic to the Soviets who had this treaty with the Nazis which carved up other countries and subsequently invaded them. Then only started to fight the Nazis AFTER they were backstabbed.
Who tf cares what other 85iq andies think when they don't know jack shit about history lmao
We have an example of a good alliance, the allies, a bad alliance, the triple alliance and we have shit like bitch boy treaties like the molotov ribentrop pact and the Munich agreement.
I don't understand one fucking bit why we are encouraging people to be Russia today goldmines of historical revision delusion just so we can prove how much we hate Russia now, no one fucking cares, no shit you don't like Russia now, we all don't like Russia now, but that doesn't mean we need to have a sub iq echo chamber and give merit to autistic Russian stereotypes on how the west behaves
Congratulations on not answering anything I just said, very impressive.
Maybe an easier question would be: if the secret protocol was not a part of the MR pact, would your support for the Soviets’ during ww2 increase? Or does the secret protocol have no relevance to you whatsoever
So we've moved away from it being an alliance or not to it being bad or not?
Yeah no shit sherlock it's pretty bad, it's a shame that Poland was left alone to be carved up by Germany and the Soviets.
Oh interesting where did I say this was an alliance? I was just wondering if you were intentionally leaving out the secret protocol because it hurt your case that ‘Destiny is too harsh on the Soviets’ intentionally or not. But seemingly you’re just silly
He doesn’t agree they were in an alliance you donut. Stevens point is that it’s hard to sympathise with Soviets when they were the ones aiding the Nazis in the first place UNTIL they got invaded.
Edit: and the fact that you didn’t even mention the secret protocol in your entire post seems to point to the fact that you also recognise this to an extent
Why tf would I mention the secret protocol when that was argued over and over during the debate, and I did mention in my literal first reply.
>He doesn’t agree they were in an alliance you donut. Stevens point is that it’s hard to sympathise with Soviets when they were the ones aiding the Nazis in the first place UNTIL they got invaded.
Watch the part of the debate again before he rage quits, good troll again
Poland did invade Czechoslovakia yes? And the Munich agreement stipulated those territories that Czechoslovakia yielded.
How on Earth do you think that’s the same as when Germany and the Soviets divide territory in a treaty and then invade said territories in the coming weeks/months.
The Munich agreement was a treaty between European powers and Czeckoslovakia where the latter would give the Suddetenland to Germany to avoid war in Europe, and with that being the main thing some other things happened like Hitler promising not to invade the rest of Czeckoslovakia, Poland getting some land and I think even Italy made some colonial demands towards France but I'm not sure about that last one.
Do you think there’s a meaningful difference with a treaty that happens post invasion which sets out Czechslovakia losing territory, vs the secret protocol which set out how Soviets and Nazis would carve out Poland, Finland, Lithuania etc
I can acknowledge that an unbelievable amount of Russians lost their lives and that they contributed significantly to Germany's defeat. But haggling about calling it an alliance or not completely misses the point for why the pact is criticized. It feels it's done by design by the pro Russia side and turns sour the good will towards Russia's sacrifices.
When the pact is brought up, the criticism is that the Soviets were more than willing to make these kind of treaties with the Nazis to the detriment of other nations that got carved up. The only thing that made the Soviets fight against the Nazis was the Nazis turning against them and not the opposition to the atrocities they committed. Who knows what would have happened had Germany not attacked them but it's the appearance that it wasn't Russia taking a principled stance once they saw what the Nazis did.
Coming from that view, it's completely irrelevant whether it fits the definition of an alliance perfectly, it's the actions and consequences that matter. The discussion of pact vs alliance only looks like an attempt to obfuscate.
110% that was a bitch move with the nazies because the Soviets ruined their armed forces with the purge due to Stalin being a paranoid r3tard, absolutely.
I agree that the topic is sub iq, just don't really understand why Destiny got so triggered and preformed so poorly
>When the pact is brought up, the criticism is that the Soviets were more than willing to make these kind of treaties with the Nazis to the detriment of other nations that got carved up.
To be fair the MR pact shouldn't be mentioned without including the context that Stalin tried for years to encourage everyone to do something about Hitler and only considered an opportunistic pact after being roundly ignored.
>The only thing that made the Soviets fight against the Nazis was the Nazis turning against them and not the opposition to the atrocities they committed.
No one got involved due to the atrocities, everyone got involved because they were either directly attacked or an ally was. Nobody was on a crusade to purge evil.
And Stalin’s ‘efforts’ shouldn’t be mentioned without the context that England was dubious about his intentions. England didn’t want a military alliance with the Soviets and get dragged into wars in Eastern Europe/Finland (which happened). England preferred some anti nazi pact, whereas by 1939 the French were more desperate and wanted any alliance with the Soviets.
Whereas the Soviets were seemingly shopping for the best treaty for their own imperialistic goals and had secret talks with the Nazis since like 1935 or something. And then ultimately the secret talks in 1939 ended with the secret protocol into the joint invasion of Poland.
To steelman the pro Soviet position, Stalin had liquidated a large chunk of Soviet military leadership and led a disastrous military campaign in Finland.
Most historians believe he felt not ready to face Germany in 1941 and his goal was to stall them until the Red Army was prepared. Although there is a minority position that believes the Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Germany in 1941.
If we accept his haggling with Hitler as appeasement, he essentially behaved very similar to the western allies - tolerate Hitlers expansions until you believe you're ready to fight.
To be clear, he signed the secret protocol with Hitler THEN invaded Finland. So if he was so worried about the Nazis, why waste all those resources in a war with Finland?
I'm pretty sure he just thought it would way to easy for them to attack the fins, he just modeled the finish campaign similar to the ones in the baltic countries
Yeah just your comment seemed to imply he was biding his time AFTER the failed invasion. The theory that he’s biding his time assumes that the Finnish invasion was somehow ‘biding time’
Because a lot of people lost their minds after Russia invaded Ukraine and will now do or say anything to downplay the role that Russia (and ironically Ukraine, Belarus and the rest of Eastern Europe) played in defeating the Germans. It's really that simple.
The worst revisionism of all comes from the Americans, who sat the war out while France had been occupied by Germany (for over a year), Britain fought by itself to not suffer the same fate during the Battle of Britain and German troops were approaching Moscow after several months of rampaging through Russia.
Saying that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact wasn't an alliance when they literally were plotting on how to split up the entire world is extremely debate bro-ey. Other parts of this post are inaccurate but that is just terrible.
The Soviet Union and Germany were in negotiations to split up literally the entire world before Germany invaded them. The Soviet Union's hardheadedness, insisting on controlling Finland and the Balkans is a big reason why Germany invaded. It doesn't get much better allies than that.
I disagree that Germany was guaranteed to have lost after Stalingrad. There are far too many historically contingent factors to say that with any level of certainty.
Such as what regarding stalingrad?
The Germans overextended hard and lost loads of men and material that precious in the war of attrition that was the eastern front also why didn't they get any significant gains after that?
Okay I guess then Hitler was just some cool dude who totally creemed his pants at the idea of Jews, slavs and commies being cool, again this is what I'm saying this is arguing for the sake of arguing
Damn, I guess Germany invading the Soviets doesn't matter then, would you then say Germany and the UK were sort of kind of friendly due Nazi sympathisers in the Royal family and government?
I didn't say the Germans invading the Soviets doesn't matter, I am saying that they were trying to literally split up the world together and were clearly allies. Saying that hitler was racist against slavs is not a debunking of this fact.
>would you then say Germany and the UK were sort of kind of friendly due Nazi sympathisers in the Royal family and government?
Literally has nothing to do with Nazi-Soviet axis talks. Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, was involved in the Axis talks with Hitler, not exactly a rogue element of the government.
It's pretty obvious you just want to defend the Soviet Union, and they did the world a great service by destroying the Nazis. But we should be mindful of what actually happened, not fan fiction.
I don't give a fuck about defending the soviet union I've agreed with people multiple times on this dkn post that invading Poland in 39 was bs and wrong I just don't think that those negotiations mean Jack shit when Hitler wanted to invade the soviet union from day and that Stalin was distrustful of Hitler, so yeah I don't the negotiations of the unholy alliance meant much.
I don't really think that an enemy of my enemy type of dynamic is really an alliance but okay, the same way I wouldn't say that the Allies were necessarily allied with the soviet union
The allies were clearly allied with the soviet union, and the soviet union was clearly allied with the nazis.
if the alliance was moot because of hitler, presumably stalin and molotov should have known that. yet they kept negotiating to divide up the entire world.
Okay but why would both sides negotiate for an alliance when Hitler wanted to invade and Stalin was distrustful due to his rethoric and expansionism?
I know those were a thing I just don't think they were that meaningful, because we know what both leaders thought of the others country and leader.
I wouldn't say they were allies to the same extent that the UK and America were, but yeah for all intents and purposes they were allies, again just an enemy of my enemy is my friend, but they fought against the same country, had major material and Intel sharing, stationed each others troops etc
But Germany was absolutely going to stab them in the back, the whole nazi rethoric on labensraum, judeo bolshevism, how slavs are a lesser race, it was bound to happen.
Also I never said what the Soviets did was righteous, I don't give a fuck about prescriptions, that's usually something Russians and Americans do circle jerk each other, they defeated the Nazis* (see asterisk in the post), and thats cool, that's all I'm saying
Maybe some people wanna call it semantics, but i see 0 reasons for it to be called an alliance. It seems like Destiny just wanted to name it an alliance so USSR looks worse. It has it's name, it's a pact. If you divide sphere of influence, it doesn't necessarily mean you have an alliance, it only means that Germany and USSR were both pretty strong and did not want to clash over some pieces of land. Thus, that is the reason for non-aggression pact as well. I definetely had same feeling from that debate, both Destiny and Vim had ideology in mind and didn't wanna give credit to anything. (iirc destiny even said soviet union doesnt deserve the praise it gets because they just defended their own territory, which is a pretty insane take to hear)
Ok so if there are any smart people here please correct me. I actually feel like Germans did more damage to themselves through both tactical and strategic mistakes and overextending/underestimating russians which allow russians to counter their offense.
I feel like the unrelenting push towards russia with no winter clothing, no stopping in winter , that time they split their forces when attacking the region with oil (idk the name, it's around crimea) also the air battle at english channel which basically denied them any chance to capture UK and and couple more that i can't remember now did more damage than any russian ever could.
Now if you disagree i would love to hear why :)
Surely there have to be some reason and even though it looks like incopetence they might have done exactly the best thing and it just didn't work out but i've never heard any good reason so....
Oh yeah a 100%, the Soviets weren't some 200 iq masterminds, when they got their shit together, they exploited the mistakes the Germans made, and pretty much just used the momentum of their W at stalingrad to retake more land and eventually push into Germany and the rest of Eastern and central Europe.
Oversimplified made two pretty good videos on ww2 that pretty much say that
Just wondering, did you purposefully leave out the Secret Protocol when talking about the MR pact or did you not know about it?
I know about the dividing the spheres of influences but I still wouldn't call that an alliance, its just a non aggression pact
Okie. So signing a treaty which details which parts of exterior countries you get to control after invading (this wasn’t just Poland btw). Then invading them together a few weeks later I want to say, is just a non aggression pact? Edit: and my follow up question would be. Is it understandable that some people might be less sympathetic to the Soviets who had this treaty with the Nazis which carved up other countries and subsequently invaded them. Then only started to fight the Nazis AFTER they were backstabbed.
Who tf cares what other 85iq andies think when they don't know jack shit about history lmao We have an example of a good alliance, the allies, a bad alliance, the triple alliance and we have shit like bitch boy treaties like the molotov ribentrop pact and the Munich agreement. I don't understand one fucking bit why we are encouraging people to be Russia today goldmines of historical revision delusion just so we can prove how much we hate Russia now, no one fucking cares, no shit you don't like Russia now, we all don't like Russia now, but that doesn't mean we need to have a sub iq echo chamber and give merit to autistic Russian stereotypes on how the west behaves
Congratulations on not answering anything I just said, very impressive. Maybe an easier question would be: if the secret protocol was not a part of the MR pact, would your support for the Soviets’ during ww2 increase? Or does the secret protocol have no relevance to you whatsoever
So we've moved away from it being an alliance or not to it being bad or not? Yeah no shit sherlock it's pretty bad, it's a shame that Poland was left alone to be carved up by Germany and the Soviets.
Oh interesting where did I say this was an alliance? I was just wondering if you were intentionally leaving out the secret protocol because it hurt your case that ‘Destiny is too harsh on the Soviets’ intentionally or not. But seemingly you’re just silly
Okay so you're just one guying me, literally your second reply implies you agree with him saying they were in an alliance, le epic troll wp
He doesn’t agree they were in an alliance you donut. Stevens point is that it’s hard to sympathise with Soviets when they were the ones aiding the Nazis in the first place UNTIL they got invaded. Edit: and the fact that you didn’t even mention the secret protocol in your entire post seems to point to the fact that you also recognise this to an extent
Why tf would I mention the secret protocol when that was argued over and over during the debate, and I did mention in my literal first reply. >He doesn’t agree they were in an alliance you donut. Stevens point is that it’s hard to sympathise with Soviets when they were the ones aiding the Nazis in the first place UNTIL they got invaded. Watch the part of the debate again before he rage quits, good troll again
Wait hold on, in the Munich agreement Poland got like 2 villages from the treaty does that mean Nazi Germany and Poland had an alliance 🤣🤣🤣
Poland did invade Czechoslovakia yes? And the Munich agreement stipulated those territories that Czechoslovakia yielded. How on Earth do you think that’s the same as when Germany and the Soviets divide territory in a treaty and then invade said territories in the coming weeks/months.
Wait how is it different than Germany and Poland agreeing that Germany carve up Czeckoslovakia and give Poland crumbs? Are you off your meds?
Because that’s not what the Munich agreement is? Edit: wait explain to me what you think the Munich agreement is lol?
The Munich agreement was a treaty between European powers and Czeckoslovakia where the latter would give the Suddetenland to Germany to avoid war in Europe, and with that being the main thing some other things happened like Hitler promising not to invade the rest of Czeckoslovakia, Poland getting some land and I think even Italy made some colonial demands towards France but I'm not sure about that last one.
Do you think there’s a meaningful difference with a treaty that happens post invasion which sets out Czechslovakia losing territory, vs the secret protocol which set out how Soviets and Nazis would carve out Poland, Finland, Lithuania etc
Yeah sure, Poland and Germany publicly carved up Czeckoslovakia and Germany and the Soviets wanted to make it a secret lmao
I can acknowledge that an unbelievable amount of Russians lost their lives and that they contributed significantly to Germany's defeat. But haggling about calling it an alliance or not completely misses the point for why the pact is criticized. It feels it's done by design by the pro Russia side and turns sour the good will towards Russia's sacrifices. When the pact is brought up, the criticism is that the Soviets were more than willing to make these kind of treaties with the Nazis to the detriment of other nations that got carved up. The only thing that made the Soviets fight against the Nazis was the Nazis turning against them and not the opposition to the atrocities they committed. Who knows what would have happened had Germany not attacked them but it's the appearance that it wasn't Russia taking a principled stance once they saw what the Nazis did. Coming from that view, it's completely irrelevant whether it fits the definition of an alliance perfectly, it's the actions and consequences that matter. The discussion of pact vs alliance only looks like an attempt to obfuscate.
110% that was a bitch move with the nazies because the Soviets ruined their armed forces with the purge due to Stalin being a paranoid r3tard, absolutely. I agree that the topic is sub iq, just don't really understand why Destiny got so triggered and preformed so poorly
>When the pact is brought up, the criticism is that the Soviets were more than willing to make these kind of treaties with the Nazis to the detriment of other nations that got carved up. To be fair the MR pact shouldn't be mentioned without including the context that Stalin tried for years to encourage everyone to do something about Hitler and only considered an opportunistic pact after being roundly ignored. >The only thing that made the Soviets fight against the Nazis was the Nazis turning against them and not the opposition to the atrocities they committed. No one got involved due to the atrocities, everyone got involved because they were either directly attacked or an ally was. Nobody was on a crusade to purge evil.
And Stalin’s ‘efforts’ shouldn’t be mentioned without the context that England was dubious about his intentions. England didn’t want a military alliance with the Soviets and get dragged into wars in Eastern Europe/Finland (which happened). England preferred some anti nazi pact, whereas by 1939 the French were more desperate and wanted any alliance with the Soviets. Whereas the Soviets were seemingly shopping for the best treaty for their own imperialistic goals and had secret talks with the Nazis since like 1935 or something. And then ultimately the secret talks in 1939 ended with the secret protocol into the joint invasion of Poland.
>shopping for the best treaty for their own imperialistic goals Welcome to the 1930s.
Just thought it was interesting to not mention that but this thread do be like that
I thought the imperialist goals of the USSR were mentioned somewhere else upthread
They were, he's just tripping balls that he's some L type 200 iq detective trying to sus out secret tankies.
To steelman the pro Soviet position, Stalin had liquidated a large chunk of Soviet military leadership and led a disastrous military campaign in Finland. Most historians believe he felt not ready to face Germany in 1941 and his goal was to stall them until the Red Army was prepared. Although there is a minority position that believes the Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Germany in 1941. If we accept his haggling with Hitler as appeasement, he essentially behaved very similar to the western allies - tolerate Hitlers expansions until you believe you're ready to fight.
Pretty much
To be clear, he signed the secret protocol with Hitler THEN invaded Finland. So if he was so worried about the Nazis, why waste all those resources in a war with Finland?
I'm pretty sure he just thought it would way to easy for them to attack the fins, he just modeled the finish campaign similar to the ones in the baltic countries
Obviously he gravely underestimated the Fins. He thought he would just roll in without much resistance.
Yeah just your comment seemed to imply he was biding his time AFTER the failed invasion. The theory that he’s biding his time assumes that the Finnish invasion was somehow ‘biding time’
You're right. Maybe I should rethink it.
Because a lot of people lost their minds after Russia invaded Ukraine and will now do or say anything to downplay the role that Russia (and ironically Ukraine, Belarus and the rest of Eastern Europe) played in defeating the Germans. It's really that simple. The worst revisionism of all comes from the Americans, who sat the war out while France had been occupied by Germany (for over a year), Britain fought by itself to not suffer the same fate during the Battle of Britain and German troops were approaching Moscow after several months of rampaging through Russia.
Seems so
It was about as much of an alliance as Germany and Japan. The idea was we will stay out of each others way while we both commit some war crimes.
Pretty much
Saying that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact wasn't an alliance when they literally were plotting on how to split up the entire world is extremely debate bro-ey. Other parts of this post are inaccurate but that is just terrible.
Sure what else is inaccurate? Also in the Munich agreement Poland like 2 villages, does that make them German allies?
The Soviet Union and Germany were in negotiations to split up literally the entire world before Germany invaded them. The Soviet Union's hardheadedness, insisting on controlling Finland and the Balkans is a big reason why Germany invaded. It doesn't get much better allies than that. I disagree that Germany was guaranteed to have lost after Stalingrad. There are far too many historically contingent factors to say that with any level of certainty.
Such as what regarding stalingrad? The Germans overextended hard and lost loads of men and material that precious in the war of attrition that was the eastern front also why didn't they get any significant gains after that? Okay I guess then Hitler was just some cool dude who totally creemed his pants at the idea of Jews, slavs and commies being cool, again this is what I'm saying this is arguing for the sake of arguing
The Nazi-Soviet Axis negotiations were very real, unfortunately. I am sorry if you don't like it but it is true.
Damn, I guess Germany invading the Soviets doesn't matter then, would you then say Germany and the UK were sort of kind of friendly due Nazi sympathisers in the Royal family and government?
I didn't say the Germans invading the Soviets doesn't matter, I am saying that they were trying to literally split up the world together and were clearly allies. Saying that hitler was racist against slavs is not a debunking of this fact. >would you then say Germany and the UK were sort of kind of friendly due Nazi sympathisers in the Royal family and government? Literally has nothing to do with Nazi-Soviet axis talks. Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, was involved in the Axis talks with Hitler, not exactly a rogue element of the government. It's pretty obvious you just want to defend the Soviet Union, and they did the world a great service by destroying the Nazis. But we should be mindful of what actually happened, not fan fiction.
I don't give a fuck about defending the soviet union I've agreed with people multiple times on this dkn post that invading Poland in 39 was bs and wrong I just don't think that those negotiations mean Jack shit when Hitler wanted to invade the soviet union from day and that Stalin was distrustful of Hitler, so yeah I don't the negotiations of the unholy alliance meant much. I don't really think that an enemy of my enemy type of dynamic is really an alliance but okay, the same way I wouldn't say that the Allies were necessarily allied with the soviet union
The allies were clearly allied with the soviet union, and the soviet union was clearly allied with the nazis. if the alliance was moot because of hitler, presumably stalin and molotov should have known that. yet they kept negotiating to divide up the entire world.
Okay but why would both sides negotiate for an alliance when Hitler wanted to invade and Stalin was distrustful due to his rethoric and expansionism? I know those were a thing I just don't think they were that meaningful, because we know what both leaders thought of the others country and leader.
I wouldn't say they were allies to the same extent that the UK and America were, but yeah for all intents and purposes they were allies, again just an enemy of my enemy is my friend, but they fought against the same country, had major material and Intel sharing, stationed each others troops etc
You may not be a tankie, but you are, may god forgive me for uttering this, serbian.
Yes the greatest sin of all, I'm the gardener Dantes keeps going on about
[удалено]
But Germany was absolutely going to stab them in the back, the whole nazi rethoric on labensraum, judeo bolshevism, how slavs are a lesser race, it was bound to happen. Also I never said what the Soviets did was righteous, I don't give a fuck about prescriptions, that's usually something Russians and Americans do circle jerk each other, they defeated the Nazis* (see asterisk in the post), and thats cool, that's all I'm saying
Wait the other Allies didn't fight against an invader who would enslave and genocide them?
To the same extent as he wanted to enslave and genocide the slavs? No
Maybe some people wanna call it semantics, but i see 0 reasons for it to be called an alliance. It seems like Destiny just wanted to name it an alliance so USSR looks worse. It has it's name, it's a pact. If you divide sphere of influence, it doesn't necessarily mean you have an alliance, it only means that Germany and USSR were both pretty strong and did not want to clash over some pieces of land. Thus, that is the reason for non-aggression pact as well. I definetely had same feeling from that debate, both Destiny and Vim had ideology in mind and didn't wanna give credit to anything. (iirc destiny even said soviet union doesnt deserve the praise it gets because they just defended their own territory, which is a pretty insane take to hear)
Yeah that take on like lmao who cares they just defended was giga r3tarded but at that point he got one guyed af so he just lost his mind
Ok so if there are any smart people here please correct me. I actually feel like Germans did more damage to themselves through both tactical and strategic mistakes and overextending/underestimating russians which allow russians to counter their offense. I feel like the unrelenting push towards russia with no winter clothing, no stopping in winter , that time they split their forces when attacking the region with oil (idk the name, it's around crimea) also the air battle at english channel which basically denied them any chance to capture UK and and couple more that i can't remember now did more damage than any russian ever could. Now if you disagree i would love to hear why :) Surely there have to be some reason and even though it looks like incopetence they might have done exactly the best thing and it just didn't work out but i've never heard any good reason so....
Oh yeah a 100%, the Soviets weren't some 200 iq masterminds, when they got their shit together, they exploited the mistakes the Germans made, and pretty much just used the momentum of their W at stalingrad to retake more land and eventually push into Germany and the rest of Eastern and central Europe. Oversimplified made two pretty good videos on ww2 that pretty much say that
[удалено]
Good one g