It’s amusing how contemporary Stalinists put so much effort into justifying a pact that Stalin himself tried to keep from public knowledge and Russians rarely want to acknowledge.
That ought to tell you that the USSR wasn’t proud of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
What’s even more amusing is a bunch of history revisionists come here to defend the argument that the communists and not the fascists were the main partners of the Nazis, lol. Seriously. They were literally part of the same military coalition.
Communists and Nazis were literally part of the same military coalition. Stalin made sure of that. He even made a toast for Hitler’s continued good health.
'I know how much the German nation loves its Fuehrer; I should therefore like to drink to his health.’
You should really be reading this as an intelligently worded sleight. Particularly given they had already begun building the 102,000 tanks that would eventually kill him. It’s the perfect thing to say when you know this man took power on just 42% of the vote, and that support would actually be lower after killing and suppressing all opposition if not for the terror campaigns and suppression.
When you know you’re already planning to kill this man drinking to his health is quite apt.
Yes, the UK and France were likewise preparing for war. So how can Western nations be condemned for buying time by negotiating with Hitler, if you are willing to excuse Stalin for doing precisely the same thing?
Neither were doing anything of the sort. As I have already pointed out and as basically all academic historians agree - both were trying to steer Hitler towards attacking the USSR. They rejected every attempt of the USSR to do anything about the nazis, forcing the USSR to either accept fighting the nazis or to enter into their own non-aggression pact. They did not believe the USSR would do so.
The West was most definitely preparing for war, even if they hoped Hitler would attack the USSR. Peacetime conscription, previously unheard of in the UK, was established in the months before Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed.
Meanwhile, Stalin was preparing for war and hoped Hitler would attack the West.
Why didn’t the West cooperate with Stalin in those early days? Probably because they didn’t trust him. For good reason.
This is nonsense. You genuinely do not know what you are talking about.
In 1936 Britain ordered just 310 Spitfires to be produced, delivered in 1938. And was only contracted for another 1000 by 1940.
When Germany fucked Poland and turned towards France in 1939, there was just 3 months between this action and Britain sending the British Expeditionary Force of 390,000 troops to support the French. These all got resoundingly fucked in the ass because they were NOT PREPARED. This led to the disaster at Dunkirk.
Britain then started to take shit seriously. Massive action was taken, the Shadow Factory Plan was put into effect, Spitfire production was taken and given to Vickers, and the London Aircraft Production Group was formed to start churning out Spitfires and bombers en masse. Britain was not remotely preparing for war, it had action plans it could take IF a war broke out, but it was doing fuck all until the IF actually happened.
But we can listen to Winston Churchill himself on this topic can’t we? His words to the italian fascists in 1927 are explicitly clear on what side he stood:
If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been wholeheartedly with you from the start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.
I am begging you people to read books for your history. Real books by actual academic historians. Stop getting all of your history from reddit comments made by literal actual fascists who fill your brain with porridge. It’s like someone says the word communism and all of you lose the capability to remember that half the internet are reactionaries that want desantis for president, you completely ignore that when they fill you brains with something you desperately want to hear because you’re so heavily propagandised on anti-communism that you lose all capability to verify fact from fascist fiction and historical revisionism.
If you are counting Spitfires in 1936, then you are the one who needs to read more history books. The Hurricane, not the Spitfire, was the primary fighter aircraft used by the RAF in the early war. In 1938, RAF had only 2 Hurricane squadrons. When they declared war the following year, they already had 16 Hurricane squadrons and 35,000 new troops. So yes, they were most definitely preparing for war.
And obviously, “preparing for war” does not mean “capable of defeating Hitler”. The UK suffered a defeat at Dunkirk in 1940 for the same reason that the Soviets suffered defeats at Kharkiv and Smolensk in 1941: they both prepared for war, but the Germans were far better prepared.
The Red Army and the Wehrmacht coordinated a combined attack on Poland. Sounds like a military coalition to me.
For all their faults, the armies of the West never conducted a joint offensive with Nazis. Almost a century later, the West considers its attempts to negotiate with Hitler a complete failure, even a source of shame. Nobody here will defend it.
But you can always count on Stalinists to shamelessly defend striking a deal with Nazis.
Yes, not subscribing to the idea that the ones who defeated the Nazis are their main allies - and not, you know, the other powers in their military coalition - means I’m a Stalinist.
Some people are so fucked up in the head, it’s fascinating.
I never said the main allies of the Nazis were the Soviets.
The Nazis were allied with fascist Italy and imperialist Japan. They were in a brief military coalition with the Soviets, betrayed the Soviets, and were defeated by the Soviets (with some help from their allies in the West).
At no point were the Western democracies in any sort of military coalition or alliance with Hitler.
It’s amusing how contemporary Stalinists put so much effort into justifying a pact that Stalin himself tried to keep from public knowledge and Russians rarely want to acknowledge.
That ought to tell you that the USSR wasn’t proud of Molotov-Ribbentrop.
What’s even more amusing is a bunch of history revisionists come here to defend the argument that the communists and not the fascists were the main partners of the Nazis, lol. Seriously. They were literally part of the same military coalition.
Communists and Nazis were literally part of the same military coalition. Stalin made sure of that. He even made a toast for Hitler’s continued good health.
You should really be reading this as an intelligently worded sleight. Particularly given they had already begun building the 102,000 tanks that would eventually kill him. It’s the perfect thing to say when you know this man took power on just 42% of the vote, and that support would actually be lower after killing and suppressing all opposition if not for the terror campaigns and suppression.
When you know you’re already planning to kill this man drinking to his health is quite apt.
Yes, the UK and France were likewise preparing for war. So how can Western nations be condemned for buying time by negotiating with Hitler, if you are willing to excuse Stalin for doing precisely the same thing?
Neither were doing anything of the sort. As I have already pointed out and as basically all academic historians agree - both were trying to steer Hitler towards attacking the USSR. They rejected every attempt of the USSR to do anything about the nazis, forcing the USSR to either accept fighting the nazis or to enter into their own non-aggression pact. They did not believe the USSR would do so.
Stop inventing history. Read a fucking book.
The West was most definitely preparing for war, even if they hoped Hitler would attack the USSR. Peacetime conscription, previously unheard of in the UK, was established in the months before Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed.
Meanwhile, Stalin was preparing for war and hoped Hitler would attack the West.
Why didn’t the West cooperate with Stalin in those early days? Probably because they didn’t trust him. For good reason.
This is nonsense. You genuinely do not know what you are talking about.
In 1936 Britain ordered just 310 Spitfires to be produced, delivered in 1938. And was only contracted for another 1000 by 1940.
When Germany fucked Poland and turned towards France in 1939, there was just 3 months between this action and Britain sending the British Expeditionary Force of 390,000 troops to support the French. These all got resoundingly fucked in the ass because they were NOT PREPARED. This led to the disaster at Dunkirk.
Britain then started to take shit seriously. Massive action was taken, the Shadow Factory Plan was put into effect, Spitfire production was taken and given to Vickers, and the London Aircraft Production Group was formed to start churning out Spitfires and bombers en masse. Britain was not remotely preparing for war, it had action plans it could take IF a war broke out, but it was doing fuck all until the IF actually happened.
But we can listen to Winston Churchill himself on this topic can’t we? His words to the italian fascists in 1927 are explicitly clear on what side he stood:
I am begging you people to read books for your history. Real books by actual academic historians. Stop getting all of your history from reddit comments made by literal actual fascists who fill your brain with porridge. It’s like someone says the word communism and all of you lose the capability to remember that half the internet are reactionaries that want desantis for president, you completely ignore that when they fill you brains with something you desperately want to hear because you’re so heavily propagandised on anti-communism that you lose all capability to verify fact from fascist fiction and historical revisionism.
If you are counting Spitfires in 1936, then you are the one who needs to read more history books. The Hurricane, not the Spitfire, was the primary fighter aircraft used by the RAF in the early war. In 1938, RAF had only 2 Hurricane squadrons. When they declared war the following year, they already had 16 Hurricane squadrons and 35,000 new troops. So yes, they were most definitely preparing for war.
And obviously, “preparing for war” does not mean “capable of defeating Hitler”. The UK suffered a defeat at Dunkirk in 1940 for the same reason that the Soviets suffered defeats at Kharkiv and Smolensk in 1941: they both prepared for war, but the Germans were far better prepared.
Holy fucking shit, the gall of saying communists and nazis were part of a military coalition, lol. This has to be a bit, given the community we’re in.
The Red Army and the Wehrmacht coordinated a combined attack on Poland. Sounds like a military coalition to me.
For all their faults, the armies of the West never conducted a joint offensive with Nazis. Almost a century later, the West considers its attempts to negotiate with Hitler a complete failure, even a source of shame. Nobody here will defend it.
But you can always count on Stalinists to shamelessly defend striking a deal with Nazis.
Yes, not subscribing to the idea that the ones who defeated the Nazis are their main allies - and not, you know, the other powers in their military coalition - means I’m a Stalinist.
Some people are so fucked up in the head, it’s fascinating.
I never said the main allies of the Nazis were the Soviets.
The Nazis were allied with fascist Italy and imperialist Japan. They were in a brief military coalition with the Soviets, betrayed the Soviets, and were defeated by the Soviets (with some help from their allies in the West).
At no point were the Western democracies in any sort of military coalition or alliance with Hitler.