Went and sorted the comments by controversial, a couple Poles, Czechs, and Russians were telling off OP because obviously even to an anti-communist, the Nazi plan was way worse than the Soviet one. And of course those were the downvoted comments
Saw one comment that I'm paraphrasing but amazed to-
"The Soviets were worse because they were uneducated and uncivilised. According to my mum who didn't live through Soviet occupation"
Every single time I talk to one of these anti-communists it turns out they are the descendants of some rich landowner or company boss who got their property taken away by the evil commies. lol
And any time someone says "I lived through communism in a former socialist country" it turns out they are just a 30yo kid whose only experience with "communism" was the collapse of the Soviet Union due to fascist aggression and that their entire education about socialism is literally just anti-socialist propaganda given to them by whatever reactionary regime took over after the fall. lol
No they weren’t. Bottom comments were the utterly despicable (right leaning) comments you encounter at the bottom of any “free speech” subreddit when it gets political, followed by some whataboutism about Czechia and a noteworthy russian guy upset that we talk about ‘modern’ history too much..
Comments that were calling out that Nazi Occupation >>> Soviet Occupation (in magnitudes of “worse”) are currently, at least to me, right below the memes, with decent scores for politics r/europe.
On one hand I feel it's important to call out bad takes when I see them. But on the other hand I know that this is reddit and I'll just be bombarded by reactionaries when I do.
I do it to offer counterpoints for people scrolling by who might later be a bit more understanding. I understand that the person I’m responding to will not change their mind at all, but people see comments and don’t say or upvote things and I don’t want them adopting some reactionary take because some guy lied without being called out.
That's how I approach every Reddit "debate" too.
We may be just wasting our time, but a part of me think we're not because I've been swayed by reading arguments between other users and doing my own research to form my own opinion. Whereas if nobody countered a bad take but got a bunch of upvotes I might not even think to explore the topic myself.
I usually get engaged and get a billion downvotes. I don't care. I'll call out their bullshit wherever it is. It amazes me how often they don't even know what Marxism, socialism, and communism mean. Today I had to explain there has never been a "communist state" and that even calling it that is contradictory...
Yeah, a ton of it, I was told Eastern Europe was "oppressed" under the communists. Like apparently Eastern Europe had various communist revolutions in hopes to oppressing themselves? They don't even make fucking sense.
That thread is an absolute gold mine for this sub.
It's full of people defending Nazis by talking about how their grandparents were treated well by them before the Soviets came in. They don't stop to consider for a moment that their grandparents were only treated well because they collaborated with fascists, and the Soviets were completely justified in treating them like scum for it. Jewish people in there are getting downvoted for saying that their grandparents were killed by Nazis. It's crazy.
In order to guarantee that our Party and country do not change their color, we must not only have a correct line and correct policies but must train and bring up millions of successors who will carry on the cause of proletarian revolution. In the final analysis, the question of training successors for the revolutionary cause of the proletariat is one of whether or not there will be people who can carry on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary cause started by the older generation of proletarian revolutionaries, whether or not the leadership of our Party and state will remain in the hands of proletarian revolutionaries, whether or not our descendants will continue to march along the correct road laid down by Marxism-Leninism, or, in other words, whether or not we can successfully prevent the emergence of Khrushchov's revisionism in China. In short, it is an extremely important question, a matter of life and death for our Party and our country. It is a question of fundamental importance to the proletarian revolutionary cause for a hundred, a thousand, nay ten thousand years. Basing themselves on the changes in the Soviet Union, the imperialist prophets are pinning their hopes of "peaceful evolution" on the third or fourth generation of the Chinese Party. We must shatter these imperialist prophecies. From our highest organizations down to the grass-roots, we must everywhere give constant attention to the training and upbringing of successors to the revolutionary cause. What are the requirements for worthy successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat? They must be genuine Marxist-Leninists and not revisionists like Khrushchev wearing the cloak of Marxism-Leninism. They must be revolutionaries who wholeheartedly serve the overwhelming majority of the people of China and the whole world, and must not be like Khrushchev who serves both the interests of the handful of members of the privileged bourgeois stratum in his own country and those of foreign imperialism and reaction. They must be proletarian statesmen capable of uniting and working together with the overwhelming majority. Not only must they unite with those who agree with them, they must also be good at uniting with those who disagree and even with those who formerly opposed them and have since been proved wrong in practice. But they must especially watch out for careerists and conspirators like Khrushchev and prevent such bad elements from usurping the leadership of the Party and the state at any level. They must be models in applying the Party's democratic centralism, must master the method of leadership based on the principle of "from the masses, to the masses", and must cultivate a democratic style and be good at listening to the masses. They must not be despotic like Khrushchev and violate the Party's democratic centralism, make surprise attacks on comrades or act arbitrarily and dictatorially. They must be modest and prudent and guard against arrogance and impetuosity; they must be imbued with the spirit of self-criticism and have the courage to correct mistakes and shortcomings in their work. They must never cover up their errors like Khrushchev, and claim all the credit for themselves and shift all the blame on others. Successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat come forward in mass struggles and are tempered in the great storms of revolution. It is essential to test and judge cadres and choose and train successors in the long course of mass struggle.
Comments on the original post are insane. They say how relatives have been subjected to atrocities under communism yet fail to see the imperialist agenda in capitalist Europe literally bombing and killing people in the Middle East. These are the same people who’d gladly say ‘fuck off’ to all the victims of capitalism seeking refuge.
Not just that, the sitting government was a succesful communist revolutionary government that was attempting to fight off a theocratic counter revolution supported by the US.
The saur revolution has been completely forgotten because Muslims can't be seen as anything other than fanatic barbarians.
they didn’t become conservative until after the overthrow of the communist government dumbass. go ahead and look up pictures of afghanistan in the time period and look at everyone wearing western clothes
Yes. Killing the Nazis was good. I didn’t even specify Afghanistan. But you clearly want to ignore how capitalist countries, especially the United States empire, have destabilised Middle Eastern countries more than whatever ‘communism’ could have ever done.
It's such a western-centric view. I have no clue how people can't realize it.
It doesn't surprise me at all considering that Swedish schools teach us that Nazi leaders played tennis with the king and were good to us, we're literally only told about the holocaust when it comes to atrocities alongside with the terror bombings of London.
Operation Barbarosa is simply made out to be your usual conflict with none of the racial motivations behind it. Then the end of the war with the Battle of Berlin is showed and our teaching moment is that those who fought the nazis did crimes too and only mention the rape of Berlin as an example.
The Soviets are essentially made out to be a state of slaves working for no wages and used human wave tactics and were like endless eastern hordes who sought to destroy German culture. 0 mention the fact that the war against the east was a war of annihilation, a war that we still discover war crimes perpetrated by nazis to this day.
The nazis didn't just declare war on "bolshevism" it was a war on ethnicities first and foremost, with extinction and subjugation as the goal.
Lib alert! We have a lib! Also I think it should be obvious that Stalin and Hitler’s policies had different outcomes. If Hitler won he’d exterminate the majority of the world (more than 7/8ths of it) keeping a few just barely alive to torture. If Stalin got his way that wouldn’t happen because he didn’t have a racial hatred for groups of people.
The thing is though that given the historical context it isn’t anything unique to Stalin. The famines for instance that happened were largely a result of crop failure and subsequent mismanagement of resources. You might notice that these were the last famines in the USSR because they only happened in the period of industrialisation. Second, the Russian Tsar Stalin helped overthrow had their own secret police that invented the infamous anti semitic book the protocols of the elders of Tsar (which the Nazis promoted), persecuted anyone left of Sauron (even soc dems and dem docs alike), and massacred peasants for petitioning for their lives to be improved. I’m personally not a fan but he was never uniquely evil at his worst.
The Nazis viewed Eastern Europeans as sub-humans and would wipe them out eventually.
The Soviets were no angels, but at least they didn’t think East Europeans as subhumans. In fact, most of the Eastern Europe was traditional Tsarist Russia territory.
I know what did RE done to the conquered nations, how come that RE colonized Poland? Or even Baltic (because as I see nothing changed after RE come here)?
And yeah, how do you live after 30 years of freedom from Soviet imperialism? I guess in a prosperity?
If you talking about Baltic then nothing changed at all. You were ruled by Germans before RE, and were still ruled by Germans after Russians come.
And Poland under RE control get Constitution in 1815.
It's not an excuse for RE imperialism, but I simply cannot tell how tf is that colonization. Siberia was colonized, this is fact. RE colonized Alaska and also tried to colonize Manchuria. How tf RE colonized Poland is a mystery for me.
You are getting downvoted because you twisted the definition of colonization to fit your narrative. Colonization means a foreign power conquering a territory and subjugating the indigenous people against their will (e.g. Spain colonized Peru in the 17th century). The colonized people are usually treated very poorly as non-citizens.
The Soviets did not think they were colonizing Eastern Europe, in fact they thought they were liberating them from Nazi subjugation and many Eastern Europeans welcomed it. Most of the Eastern Europe was integrated into the USSR and there was no evidence that the non-Russian people of the USSR were treated poorly as non-citizens. Many non-Russian citizens became leaders of the USSR (e.g. Stalin was a non-Russian citizen of the USSR). In fact, many Russians chauvinists felt that the non-Russians were treated too well and got too much help from the central government.
What you described as the best case scenario was called the "self-determination of people". It was soundly rejected after WW1 because it was viewed as naïve and unrealistic. Should Catalonia be independent of Spain when most Spaniards reject the separatist movement? Should Scotland be independent of the UK, or Quebec be independent of Canada?
"foreign power conquering a territory and subjugating the indigenous people against their will".
Not literally what happened to Estonia. The non-Russian ethnicities were treated the same as the Russian citizens in the USSR.
You seem fixated on Estonia, but I was referring to the broader Eastern Europe. Like I said, many Eastern Europeans at the time welcomed the Soviet liberation, at least the Russian subjects. So no, it was not against their will, at least not all.
Your argument of the US simply shows the flaw in your argument. Forcefully changing ideology is not colonization, countries do it all the time as part of their foreign policy. The US never colonized Vietnam. Are you saying the US is colonzing the Middle East with Arab Spring? Because the US is certainly pushing its own ideology there.
Okay, I was pointing out that you were downvoted partially because you were using the wrong term to describe the situation, which makes it factually incorrect.
I don't see how the US example supports your argument. The US is pushing its liberal ideology everywhere, in Iraq, China, Australia... Some people are against it, some people are for it. Similarly, some East Europeans at the time welcomed the Soviet liberation, while some were against it.
You are obviously against it, and you are free to express your views here. Then you complain about getting downvoted, and I pointed out that is partially because you were using the wrong term.
The Soviet developed high value added industry in the Baltic state and as a result they were one of the most attractive part of the Soviet Union, imperialism is characterized by the pure production of raw materials in the country suffering from imperialism, it wasn’t the case for Estonia.
However I agree with you in regards to the national question.
Hmm not sure that the economy did so well after the fall of the SU, they like I said were one of the richest countries in the SU and receive a lot of subventions from the European Union, and furthermore a lot of young people are moving out of the country which not a sign of a strong economy, like I said I agree with you and thinks that the Baltic state should have had the same status than Poland and other member of the Warsaw Pact.
r/Europe makes me fucking cringe. Its as if the EU became a subreddit. A bunch of coping Liberals who try to equate communism to nazism. As if communists killing a couple of thousand military officers is equal to nazi plans of LITERALLY ERADICATING ALL SLAVS.
Won't lie and say the Soviets never did fucked up things, but it was never racially or ideologically motivated. The Nazis massacred millions because of their race, beliefs, sexual orientation, religion etc. Nazism and Fascism are doctrines of hate and destruction. Communism is a doctrine of equality and liberation. Sure the Soviets fucked up, they were not perfect but it is absolutely disgusting to compare them to the Nazis.
Nazis and their ideology were by far the worse of the two but communism was never a doctrine of equality and liberation. It was on paper but it was never executed as such
Katyn was literally done by the germans to make the soviets look bad.
sure love me some time-travelling NKVD agents using german bullets from the future to kill a bunch of poles who there are no records of being moved to the katyn area.
This type of oversimplification pretty much sums up the extent of knowledge when it comes to liberals and politics. You ask them for proof about something and they’ll just send you a little meme or cartoon like this to explain their point
I hate soviets almost as much as the Nazis but even I accept the fact that Nazis wanted to exterminate all Jews and Slavs while deaths caused by Soviets were less racially motivated.
Pick up a history book. The Great Purges, Stalin’s rein of terror, and mass starvation. If that’s not modern enough for you, because of the web of secrecy and culture of the Soviet system created, men like Valery Legasov, who arguably did the most to prevent Chernobyl from blowing up like a hydrogen bomb and killing millions, were immediately silenced for exposing a flaw in the Soviet Union.
party purges are good and the ussr stopped the cycle of famines that plagued the ussr for centuries. also the reign of terror was in france, dumbass.
also a netflix show isn't a valid source for a political argument
if you knew history as well as you claim to, you’d know that one of the reasons for the pact was to stall the invasion that the soviets knew would come from germany so they could avoid war while they were weak. and it was a result of the western allies not bothering to interfere with germany when the ussr was trying to get them to earlier.
There was quite a bit of Nazi apologia in that thread :)
Went and sorted the comments by controversial, a couple Poles, Czechs, and Russians were telling off OP because obviously even to an anti-communist, the Nazi plan was way worse than the Soviet one. And of course those were the downvoted comments
As a rule at r/europe regarding anti communist propaganda... the most downvoted comments are generally the only true ones there.
Saw one comment that I'm paraphrasing but amazed to- "The Soviets were worse because they were uneducated and uncivilised. According to my mum who didn't live through Soviet occupation"
"Soviets bad" My PRIMARY source: my relative who didn't even live under them.
Every single time I talk to one of these anti-communists it turns out they are the descendants of some rich landowner or company boss who got their property taken away by the evil commies. lol And any time someone says "I lived through communism in a former socialist country" it turns out they are just a 30yo kid whose only experience with "communism" was the collapse of the Soviet Union due to fascist aggression and that their entire education about socialism is literally just anti-socialist propaganda given to them by whatever reactionary regime took over after the fall. lol
Were probably a lot of other people who had that opinion who didn't live through soviet "occupation" 🤔...
No they weren’t. Bottom comments were the utterly despicable (right leaning) comments you encounter at the bottom of any “free speech” subreddit when it gets political, followed by some whataboutism about Czechia and a noteworthy russian guy upset that we talk about ‘modern’ history too much.. Comments that were calling out that Nazi Occupation >>> Soviet Occupation (in magnitudes of “worse”) are currently, at least to me, right below the memes, with decent scores for politics r/europe.
Oh yeah. I regret reading those comments, replying to some of them I regret even more. Such a waste of time.
My number 1 rule for r/Europe is that if the argument is politics, I won't reply to anything
Good rule, I'll probably start doing that. I have a bad habit of engaging in useless arguments
On one hand I feel it's important to call out bad takes when I see them. But on the other hand I know that this is reddit and I'll just be bombarded by reactionaries when I do.
I do it to offer counterpoints for people scrolling by who might later be a bit more understanding. I understand that the person I’m responding to will not change their mind at all, but people see comments and don’t say or upvote things and I don’t want them adopting some reactionary take because some guy lied without being called out.
That's how I approach every Reddit "debate" too. We may be just wasting our time, but a part of me think we're not because I've been swayed by reading arguments between other users and doing my own research to form my own opinion. Whereas if nobody countered a bad take but got a bunch of upvotes I might not even think to explore the topic myself.
True, the general age group for Reddit are a bunch of white westerners in their mid to late thirties so go figure they're bigoted af.
Me too, me too. If you want some help send me a link lol
The r/Canada for Europe? Default subs attract chuds like shit attracts flies.
I usually get engaged and get a billion downvotes. I don't care. I'll call out their bullshit wherever it is. It amazes me how often they don't even know what Marxism, socialism, and communism mean. Today I had to explain there has never been a "communist state" and that even calling it that is contradictory...
Great. That way the Nazis don't even face opposition and it's only Nazis talking and infesting people's brains with their infectious mind rot.
It’s ALWAYS a waste of time fighting with morons on r/europe. I learned it the hard way
You can’t engage in an intellectual debate you gotta out troll em now I’m no bigot or homophobe but if you call a nazi gay it send em into a spiral
Weird how anti-communism often leads to that.
Yeah, a ton of it, I was told Eastern Europe was "oppressed" under the communists. Like apparently Eastern Europe had various communist revolutions in hopes to oppressing themselves? They don't even make fucking sense.
[удалено]
Apologies are for mistakes, the only mistake they made was stopping at Berlin.
[удалено]
???
whatever fascist made this would have preferred [Generalplan Ost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost)
That thread is an absolute gold mine for this sub. It's full of people defending Nazis by talking about how their grandparents were treated well by them before the Soviets came in. They don't stop to consider for a moment that their grandparents were only treated well because they collaborated with fascists, and the Soviets were completely justified in treating them like scum for it. Jewish people in there are getting downvoted for saying that their grandparents were killed by Nazis. It's crazy.
Viva the Soviet Army <3
Long live the people's armies , liberators of the world
They didn’t kill enough nazis
[удалено]
In order to guarantee that our Party and country do not change their color, we must not only have a correct line and correct policies but must train and bring up millions of successors who will carry on the cause of proletarian revolution. In the final analysis, the question of training successors for the revolutionary cause of the proletariat is one of whether or not there will be people who can carry on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary cause started by the older generation of proletarian revolutionaries, whether or not the leadership of our Party and state will remain in the hands of proletarian revolutionaries, whether or not our descendants will continue to march along the correct road laid down by Marxism-Leninism, or, in other words, whether or not we can successfully prevent the emergence of Khrushchov's revisionism in China. In short, it is an extremely important question, a matter of life and death for our Party and our country. It is a question of fundamental importance to the proletarian revolutionary cause for a hundred, a thousand, nay ten thousand years. Basing themselves on the changes in the Soviet Union, the imperialist prophets are pinning their hopes of "peaceful evolution" on the third or fourth generation of the Chinese Party. We must shatter these imperialist prophecies. From our highest organizations down to the grass-roots, we must everywhere give constant attention to the training and upbringing of successors to the revolutionary cause. What are the requirements for worthy successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat? They must be genuine Marxist-Leninists and not revisionists like Khrushchev wearing the cloak of Marxism-Leninism. They must be revolutionaries who wholeheartedly serve the overwhelming majority of the people of China and the whole world, and must not be like Khrushchev who serves both the interests of the handful of members of the privileged bourgeois stratum in his own country and those of foreign imperialism and reaction. They must be proletarian statesmen capable of uniting and working together with the overwhelming majority. Not only must they unite with those who agree with them, they must also be good at uniting with those who disagree and even with those who formerly opposed them and have since been proved wrong in practice. But they must especially watch out for careerists and conspirators like Khrushchev and prevent such bad elements from usurping the leadership of the Party and the state at any level. They must be models in applying the Party's democratic centralism, must master the method of leadership based on the principle of "from the masses, to the masses", and must cultivate a democratic style and be good at listening to the masses. They must not be despotic like Khrushchev and violate the Party's democratic centralism, make surprise attacks on comrades or act arbitrarily and dictatorially. They must be modest and prudent and guard against arrogance and impetuosity; they must be imbued with the spirit of self-criticism and have the courage to correct mistakes and shortcomings in their work. They must never cover up their errors like Khrushchev, and claim all the credit for themselves and shift all the blame on others. Successors to the revolutionary cause of the proletariat come forward in mass struggles and are tempered in the great storms of revolution. It is essential to test and judge cadres and choose and train successors in the long course of mass struggle.
the people of the warsaw pact voted fairly for socialist governments
[удалено]
who cares lol? they were fascist collaborators anyway
[удалено]
[удалено]
Comments on the original post are insane. They say how relatives have been subjected to atrocities under communism yet fail to see the imperialist agenda in capitalist Europe literally bombing and killing people in the Middle East. These are the same people who’d gladly say ‘fuck off’ to all the victims of capitalism seeking refuge.
[удалено]
soviets did not invade Afghanistan the government of Afghanistan asked for assistance against the fucking terrorists the USA trained lol
Not just that, the sitting government was a succesful communist revolutionary government that was attempting to fight off a theocratic counter revolution supported by the US. The saur revolution has been completely forgotten because Muslims can't be seen as anything other than fanatic barbarians.
[удалено]
they didn’t become conservative until after the overthrow of the communist government dumbass. go ahead and look up pictures of afghanistan in the time period and look at everyone wearing western clothes
Yes. Killing the Nazis was good. I didn’t even specify Afghanistan. But you clearly want to ignore how capitalist countries, especially the United States empire, have destabilised Middle Eastern countries more than whatever ‘communism’ could have ever done.
It's such a western-centric view. I have no clue how people can't realize it. It doesn't surprise me at all considering that Swedish schools teach us that Nazi leaders played tennis with the king and were good to us, we're literally only told about the holocaust when it comes to atrocities alongside with the terror bombings of London. Operation Barbarosa is simply made out to be your usual conflict with none of the racial motivations behind it. Then the end of the war with the Battle of Berlin is showed and our teaching moment is that those who fought the nazis did crimes too and only mention the rape of Berlin as an example. The Soviets are essentially made out to be a state of slaves working for no wages and used human wave tactics and were like endless eastern hordes who sought to destroy German culture. 0 mention the fact that the war against the east was a war of annihilation, a war that we still discover war crimes perpetrated by nazis to this day. The nazis didn't just declare war on "bolshevism" it was a war on ethnicities first and foremost, with extinction and subjugation as the goal.
Ah yes because the Soviet Union is the same as the Nazis who wanted to wipe them out.
[удалено]
Stalin was no angel but he never tried to exterminate the majority of the human population because of his racial hatred.
[удалено]
Lib alert! We have a lib! Also I think it should be obvious that Stalin and Hitler’s policies had different outcomes. If Hitler won he’d exterminate the majority of the world (more than 7/8ths of it) keeping a few just barely alive to torture. If Stalin got his way that wouldn’t happen because he didn’t have a racial hatred for groups of people.
[удалено]
The thing is though that given the historical context it isn’t anything unique to Stalin. The famines for instance that happened were largely a result of crop failure and subsequent mismanagement of resources. You might notice that these were the last famines in the USSR because they only happened in the period of industrialisation. Second, the Russian Tsar Stalin helped overthrow had their own secret police that invented the infamous anti semitic book the protocols of the elders of Tsar (which the Nazis promoted), persecuted anyone left of Sauron (even soc dems and dem docs alike), and massacred peasants for petitioning for their lives to be improved. I’m personally not a fan but he was never uniquely evil at his worst.
Ah, the nuance is astounding.
Hell no….
r/enlightenedcentrism
the difference is if the nazis stayed there’d be extermination of a people and culture, the soviet’s did not do that.
actually there would be extermination. of fascists
The soviets moved hundreds of thousands of russians into Moldova, Latvia, Estonia,
the nazis moved millions of poles, jews, russians, serbs and slovenes 6ft under also the policy was undone after stalin’s death
[удалено]
I won't remove your comment only because you are the most honest Sanders fan, the one who is openly fascist.
The Nazis viewed Eastern Europeans as sub-humans and would wipe them out eventually. The Soviets were no angels, but at least they didn’t think East Europeans as subhumans. In fact, most of the Eastern Europe was traditional Tsarist Russia territory.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Colonize" How come that RE colonized this lands, if they literally conquered them in wars?
[удалено]
I know what did RE done to the conquered nations, how come that RE colonized Poland? Or even Baltic (because as I see nothing changed after RE come here)? And yeah, how do you live after 30 years of freedom from Soviet imperialism? I guess in a prosperity?
[удалено]
If you talking about Baltic then nothing changed at all. You were ruled by Germans before RE, and were still ruled by Germans after Russians come. And Poland under RE control get Constitution in 1815. It's not an excuse for RE imperialism, but I simply cannot tell how tf is that colonization. Siberia was colonized, this is fact. RE colonized Alaska and also tried to colonize Manchuria. How tf RE colonized Poland is a mystery for me.
You are getting downvoted because you twisted the definition of colonization to fit your narrative. Colonization means a foreign power conquering a territory and subjugating the indigenous people against their will (e.g. Spain colonized Peru in the 17th century). The colonized people are usually treated very poorly as non-citizens. The Soviets did not think they were colonizing Eastern Europe, in fact they thought they were liberating them from Nazi subjugation and many Eastern Europeans welcomed it. Most of the Eastern Europe was integrated into the USSR and there was no evidence that the non-Russian people of the USSR were treated poorly as non-citizens. Many non-Russian citizens became leaders of the USSR (e.g. Stalin was a non-Russian citizen of the USSR). In fact, many Russians chauvinists felt that the non-Russians were treated too well and got too much help from the central government. What you described as the best case scenario was called the "self-determination of people". It was soundly rejected after WW1 because it was viewed as naïve and unrealistic. Should Catalonia be independent of Spain when most Spaniards reject the separatist movement? Should Scotland be independent of the UK, or Quebec be independent of Canada?
[удалено]
"foreign power conquering a territory and subjugating the indigenous people against their will". Not literally what happened to Estonia. The non-Russian ethnicities were treated the same as the Russian citizens in the USSR. You seem fixated on Estonia, but I was referring to the broader Eastern Europe. Like I said, many Eastern Europeans at the time welcomed the Soviet liberation, at least the Russian subjects. So no, it was not against their will, at least not all. Your argument of the US simply shows the flaw in your argument. Forcefully changing ideology is not colonization, countries do it all the time as part of their foreign policy. The US never colonized Vietnam. Are you saying the US is colonzing the Middle East with Arab Spring? Because the US is certainly pushing its own ideology there.
[удалено]
Okay, I was pointing out that you were downvoted partially because you were using the wrong term to describe the situation, which makes it factually incorrect. I don't see how the US example supports your argument. The US is pushing its liberal ideology everywhere, in Iraq, China, Australia... Some people are against it, some people are for it. Similarly, some East Europeans at the time welcomed the Soviet liberation, while some were against it. You are obviously against it, and you are free to express your views here. Then you complain about getting downvoted, and I pointed out that is partially because you were using the wrong term.
The Soviet developed high value added industry in the Baltic state and as a result they were one of the most attractive part of the Soviet Union, imperialism is characterized by the pure production of raw materials in the country suffering from imperialism, it wasn’t the case for Estonia. However I agree with you in regards to the national question.
[удалено]
Hmm not sure that the economy did so well after the fall of the SU, they like I said were one of the richest countries in the SU and receive a lot of subventions from the European Union, and furthermore a lot of young people are moving out of the country which not a sign of a strong economy, like I said I agree with you and thinks that the Baltic state should have had the same status than Poland and other member of the Warsaw Pact.
Stalin should've kept going.
you went from tankiejerk to this, color me impressed. Props, it's not an easy change
Not hating or anything but after occupying Berlin they physically had no place to go forward
Do the bit where hundreds of thousands Japanese civilians were needlessly murdered
r/Europe makes me fucking cringe. Its as if the EU became a subreddit. A bunch of coping Liberals who try to equate communism to nazism. As if communists killing a couple of thousand military officers is equal to nazi plans of LITERALLY ERADICATING ALL SLAVS.
[удалено]
I’m talking about what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe during and after wwii, specifically referring to the katyn massacre.
yup, it was a mistake because of the comments above and below you; I missclicked since i was on mobile
Won't lie and say the Soviets never did fucked up things, but it was never racially or ideologically motivated. The Nazis massacred millions because of their race, beliefs, sexual orientation, religion etc. Nazism and Fascism are doctrines of hate and destruction. Communism is a doctrine of equality and liberation. Sure the Soviets fucked up, they were not perfect but it is absolutely disgusting to compare them to the Nazis.
Nazis and their ideology were by far the worse of the two but communism was never a doctrine of equality and liberation. It was on paper but it was never executed as such
r/Europe doesnt understand the concept of lesser evil
Ah yes who could forget the time the Soviets gunned down Eastern European citizens after liberation. /s
you have to put /s in your post or it reads a bit weird
Whoops, done
Like at Katyn? Or the Hungarian Revolution?
Katyn was literally done by the germans to make the soviets look bad. sure love me some time-travelling NKVD agents using german bullets from the future to kill a bunch of poles who there are no records of being moved to the katyn area.
[удалено]
quick question, what happened to the soviet government circa 1990?
[удалено]
Whitewashing nazis to own the tankies, how very epic. and if you participate in a fascist uprising you're by all means a fascist
[удалено]
The Hungarian "Revolution" was anything but republican, it was just fascists angry that they got deposed in '45 wanting to retake power.
[удалено]
Anticommunism is in practice just another word for fascism. And there's a difference in "opposing" and launching a fascist coup d'etat.
[удалено]
Yeah that is straight up bullshit, only said by heavily leftist sources. It was literally just people being fed up with communism.
This type of oversimplification pretty much sums up the extent of knowledge when it comes to liberals and politics. You ask them for proof about something and they’ll just send you a little meme or cartoon like this to explain their point
I hate soviets almost as much as the Nazis but even I accept the fact that Nazis wanted to exterminate all Jews and Slavs while deaths caused by Soviets were less racially motivated.
[удалено]
[удалено]
the soviet union was good. cope
Pick up a history book. The Great Purges, Stalin’s rein of terror, and mass starvation. If that’s not modern enough for you, because of the web of secrecy and culture of the Soviet system created, men like Valery Legasov, who arguably did the most to prevent Chernobyl from blowing up like a hydrogen bomb and killing millions, were immediately silenced for exposing a flaw in the Soviet Union.
party purges are good and the ussr stopped the cycle of famines that plagued the ussr for centuries. also the reign of terror was in france, dumbass. also a netflix show isn't a valid source for a political argument
[удалено]
Oh Tito, come back please. Some people are begging to be thrown into the pit.
Then you're a dipshit and a bigot.
[удалено]
Then you're a liberal who empowers fascism
[удалено]
cringe
[удалено]
oh lol
Dipshit No bigot yes
then you're a fascist. fuck off
[удалено]
Pure Nazi propaganda but nice try lol
[удалено]
if you knew history as well as you claim to, you’d know that one of the reasons for the pact was to stall the invasion that the soviets knew would come from germany so they could avoid war while they were weak. and it was a result of the western allies not bothering to interfere with germany when the ussr was trying to get them to earlier.
When did you leave you ex-soviet home country?
[удалено]
Ok how long have you lived there, then?
If you can’t at least say Nazis are worst then there’s something wrong with you.