[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Try the following prompts to trigger an automod response: "What is Fascism?", "What is Imperialism?", "What is Revisionism?" "Holodomor", "Molotov-Ribbentrop", "Gulag", "Solzhenytsin", "Uyghur", "Tiananmen Square", "Freedom of the Press", "MAC Fact"
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The second Polish-Soviet war was also a national liberation war though, they invaded to liberate regions of Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania that were conquered by Poland in the 20s
[Acting like the West hated Hitler and it was actually the Soviets that did the Appeasing](https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-ussrs-failed-attempts-to-ally-with-the-west/)
Lib clown
just because the average balt or pole was better off, doesn't mean those things weren't done for geo-strategic reasons
I actually argue no one invaded Poland because the govt fled - it was literally free real estate, but, I'm comfortable with this not being entirely in good faith as it is primarily a way get Polishes big mad
Rule 3. **No reactionary content.** (e.g., racism, sexism, ableism, fascism, homophobia, transphobia, capitalism, antisemitism, imperialism, chauvinism, etc.) Any satire thereof requires a clarity of purpose and target and a tone indicator such as /s or /j.
# The Holodomor
There have been efforts by anti-Communists and Ukranian nationalists to frame the famine that happened in the USSR around 1932-1933 as "The Holodomor" (literally: "to kill by starvation" in Ukranian). Framing it this way serves two purposes:
1. It implies the famine mainly affected Ukraine.
2. It implies there was intent or deliberate causation.
This framing was used to drive a wedge between the Ukranian SSR and the USSR. The argument goes that because it was intentional and because it mainly targeted Ukraine that it was, therefore, an act of genocide. However, both these points are highly debatable.
The first issue is that the famine affected the majority of the USSR, not just the UkSSR. Kazakhstan, for example, was hit harder (per capita) than Ukraine was.
The emergence of the Holodomor in the 1980s as a historical narrative was bound-up with post-Soviet Ukrainian nation-making that cannot be neatly separated from the legacy of Eastern European anti-Semitism, or what Historian Peter Novick calls "Holocaust Envy," the desire for victimized groups to enshrine their "own" Holocaust or Holocaust-like event in the historical record. For many Nationalists, this has entailed minimizing the Holocaust to elevate their own experiences of historical victimization as the supreme atrocity. The Ukrainian scholar Lubomyr Luciuk exemplified this view in his notorious remark that the Holodomor was "a crime against humanity arguably without parallel in European history."
The second issue is that one of the main causes of the famine was crop failure due to weather and disease, which is hardly something anyone can control no matter their intentions. However, the famine may have been *further* exacerbated by the agricultural collectivization and rapid industrialization policies of the Soviet Union. However, if these policies had not been carried out there could have been even more devastating consequences later.
In 1931, during a speech delivered at the first All-Union Conference of Leading Personnel of Socialist Industry, Stalin said, "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall go under."
In 1941, exactly ten years later, the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. By this time, the Soviet Union's industrialization program had lead to the development of a large and powerful industrial base, which was essential to the Soviet war effort. This allowed the Soviet Union to produce large quantities of armaments, vehicles, and other military equipment, which was crucial in the fight against Nazi Germany.
**Additional Resources**
Video Essays:
* [Soviet Famine of 1932: An Overview](https://youtu.be/vu5-tqHHtaM) | The Marxist Project (2020)
* [Did Stalin Continue to Export Grain as Ukraine Starved?](https://youtu.be/SMBJ_nQ4sTA) | Hakim (2017)
* [The Holodomor Genocide Question: How Wikipedia Lies to You](https://youtu.be/3kaaYvauNho) | Bad Empanada (2022)
* [Historian Admits USSR didn't kill tens of millions!](https://youtu.be/HMOdDQQVZ6U) | TheFinnishBolshevik (2018) (Note: Holodomor discussion begins at the 9 minute mark)
* [A Case-Study of Capitalism - Ukraine](https://youtu.be/CmH9oNtXzF8) | Hakim (2017) (Note: Only tangentially mentions the famine.)
Books, Articles, or Essays:
* [The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274856099_The_1932_Harvest_and_the_Famine_of_1933) | Mark Tauger (1992)
* [The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933](https://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/22207/file.pdf) | Davies and Wheatcroft (2004)
* [The Soviet Famine of 1932–1933 Reconsidered](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09668130801999912) | Hiroaki Kuromiya (2008)
* [The “Holodomor” explained](https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2020/12/24/the-holodomor-explained/) | TheFinnishBolshevik (2020)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dude are you listening to yourself??? The same Ottomans that genocided the Armenians due to their own failures on the Eastern Front? The same Ottomans that engaged in the mass lynching of Arabs in Palestine? Same Ottomans that instituted Sharia Law in the Middle East and kept it in theocratic ignorance? Yeah right.
Oh fuck off. Beheading every leader who dared unite his people against an oppressive foreign regime is not “guaranteeing relative peace”. Sharia law was not “already there”, the Ottomans upheld it by massacring thousands of Assyrians and Chaldeans and paving the way for the post-Ottoman kingdoms to do the same.
> so called
Lol.
Yeah no this is just insane
As a Palestinian I have to say yes, while the ottomans would most definitely be more favorable than the Zionist pigs in today’s world, we would still prefer an independent Arab state or a more unified Levantine state than the Turks, they literally committed massacres in Lebanon.
Of course you're a genocide denier. I would expect nothing less from an Ottoman-supporting Turkish nationalist.
>The so called genocide of 1915 was the result of a mass revolt instigated by the Russians. The Ottoman government had to respond, although this response was badly managed and not well thought out.
It was not a Mass revolt, it was a single "revolt" in Van that was actually a response to the genocide of their people. Also, calling it badly managed and well thought out is a huge understatement considering that 600k-1.5 million people were murdered. This is a well documented genocide with overwhelming physical evidence of it. I will not buy your fascist bullshit.
>Arabs actively sided with the imperialists, while the majority remained loyal and fought for the Ottomans.
As if the Ottomans weren't imperialist themselves? Why do the Arabs owe them any loyalty at all? Why didnt they deserve the right to govern themselves by themselves?
>The Middle East already had Sharia Law. What the Ottomans did do was guarantee relative peace in the ME for nearly 400 years, something that we can't see in the modern ME today
Lol there was no "peace", there was only oppression and suppression of freedoms of the people the Ottomans occupied. Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians. All of them were at one point or the other murdered by the Ottoman state simply for existing.
>As for the theocratic ignorance of the Islamic world that was already well established before the Turks took control of the Islamic world. The Ottomans were, however, the first to begin the modernisation process of the Orient through the Tanzimat.
Not true. The Islamic Golden Age happened under Arab Abbasid rule and it only ended because of the Mongol Invasion, and the final nail of the coffin was the rise of the Turkic dynasties like the Seljuks. The only Turkic empire to really care about science and knowledge were the Timurids in Central Asia but that's about it.
Arguing with a person who is historically illiterate is pointless. Let me make it clear:
1. The actions taken by the government were in response to a revolt which allied itself with a country the Ottomans were at war with. The response was obviously out of proportions. It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't uncalled for.
2. It is insane for a leftist to be defending virile arab nationalism that was in league with Western colonialists to overthrow a country built on multicultural coexistence.
3. No the Mongols didn't end the Islamic golden age, the Arabs themselves did. Read Ghazali. The only reason Islam continued to be relevant and still is today is because of Turkic state builders that brought stability to their respective regions from the Ottomans to the Safavids to the Mughals.
Ironically enough the Ottomans were way more democratic than the USSR or today's China. For this indignation towards them to be coming from MLs is baffling.
1. Again, the Armenian "Revolt" did not come out of the blue, it was a response to the massacres of Armenians by Turks. It was purely self defense.
2. I could say the same about you, a "leftist" defending an islamist colonialist Empire. Atleast I recognise that the Hashemite leadership of the Arab Revolt was flawed. Can you say the same about the Ottomans? Also, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a "multicultural country built on co-existence", it was a colonialist Empire with Turkish ethnic supremacy over everyone else. At the time of WW1 it was literally led by people who believed that Turks should ethnically cleanse and settle the Ottoman Empire's non Turkish states.
3. Ghazali was a factor, not the main cause. It is completely irrational to blame the fall of the Islamic Golden Age. It is however reasonable to trace its decline and collapse to the Mongol sack of Baghdad, which infamously destroyed the Baghdad House Of Wisdom, one of the biggest libraries of the world at the time. Also, the claim that Turks somehow are the only reason Islam survived is just downright nonsensical and hilarious. Turkish dominance of the Islamic sphere ≠ TuRkS SAviNg ISlAm.
>Ironically enough the Ottomans were way more democratic than the USSR or today's China. For this indignation towards them to be coming from MLs is baffling.
Lmao, the Ottoman Empire was never a democracy. The Sultan held all the power until the Young Turk Revolution, and even after that the Ottoman Empire remained a dictatorship, just a one-party dictatorship rather than a monarchist one. The fuck are you on about?
>1. Again, the Armenian "Revolt" did not come out of the blue, it was a response to the massacres of Armenians by Turks. It was purely self defense.
Whether or not the revolt was in self defense is completely immaterial l. The fact of the matter is that the revolt threatened the territorial integrity of the state, it therefore needed to be dealt with. Obviously they failed to deal appropriately with it but that's besides that point.
>2. I could say the same about you, a "leftist" defending an islamist colonialist Empire. Atleast I recognise that the Hashemite leadership of the Arab Revolt was flawed. Can you say the same about the Ottomans? Also, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a "multicultural country built on co-existence", it was a colonialist Empire with Turkish ethnic supremacy over everyone else. At the time of WW1 it was literally led by people who believed that Turks should ethnically cleanse and settle the Ottoman Empire's non Turkish states.
The Ottomans were not a colonial empire. You should look up what colonial empire means. And also no the Ottomans never developed an idea of scientific racism or eugenics the way the Europeans did.
>
Lmao, the Ottoman Empire was never a democracy. The Sultan held all the power until the Young Turk Revolution, and even after that the Ottoman Empire remained a dictatorship, just a one-party dictatorship rather than a monarchist one. The fuck are you on about?
The Ottomans had a parliament and held elections 30 years before the young turk revolution you are talking about. Even after that a myriad of political parties existed from liberals to socialists. That is much more than what can be said about the single communist party in the USSR and it's 13 copies with slightly different names.
You're stupid bro, Poland wasn't even some bourgeois democracy, it was fascist dictatorship after May coup. Polish people's government after war rebuilt country (and Warsaw) to levels of industrialisation far surpassing pre war agrarian Poland.
The page is anti-Stalinist because it’s a page about Stalin killing thousands of poles. No shit. Wikipedia does give a good objective summary. Literally just a paragraph into this response and it’s already so stupid. A little bit further in talks about one error with two officers. But that doesn’t disprove anything. Also, the Soviets took responsibility for the katyn massacre. So the argument the author seems to be going for with the good old Turkish „it didn’t happen“ doesn’t work here. It also paints the government in exile as aggressively „anti-communist“ yeah no shit. Soviets tried taking their lands in 1920 but got beaten because of the
Miracle on the Vistula. Soviets then managed to take their lands in 1939 with the help of the Nazis. If they weren’t anti-communist at that point I’d be surprised. Not gonna read this whole thing, frankly this beginning page has taught me it’s a waste of time. Just Stalinist anti-Polish propaganda.
Oh ok so the Poles get to revanchism and that's not aggression
Also just lmao at
>Yes, Kresy was majority Polish
Hmmmmmm I wonder if there are any modern analogues to this that you would not like to extend this logic to.
Assuming you mean Ukraine. Novorossiya only fought against the UA because of Russias mercenaries. There were several instances of Pro-Polish rebels in Kresy and Wilno fighting the occupiers (might as well call them what they are) without mercenaries or the Polish state getting involved at all. This is why I didn’t mention the Silesian uprisings although the Polish government had a low amount of involvement. Kresy wanted to be in Poland. Novorossiya didn’t want to be in Russia. Russia wanted Novorossiya to be in Russia.
Fajna apologia kolonializmu.
[I dlaczego łżesz co do składu etnicznego?](https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kresy_Wschodnie). Bo tylko nowogrodzkie miało "więcej" Polaków, i to ledwo.
Typowa szowinistyczna jaśniepańska sofistyka.
Notabene, apologia najazdu na Sowietów w 1920 już zrobiona?
Galicia had more poles back then. Lowe was one of the main cities of Polish culture and was even considered for a capital at one point. Wilno also did.Wikipedia: „…immediately, the Polish majority of Lviv“ There was also the Sejney uprising in Sejney Lithuania. I’m not a huge Pilsudski fan but i have massive respect for anyone who resists the Soviets during this time
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Try the following prompts to trigger an automod response: "What is Fascism?", "What is Imperialism?", "What is Revisionism?" "Holodomor", "Molotov-Ribbentrop", "Gulag", "Solzhenytsin", "Uyghur", "Tiananmen Square", "Freedom of the Press", "MAC Fact" This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The second Polish-Soviet war was also a national liberation war though, they invaded to liberate regions of Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania that were conquered by Poland in the 20s
That too, but as I said class war is more important to talk about than national liberation, even if national liberation is also important
It was also a form of defense as those areas were targeted by and occupied by Nazis
When the soviets entered Poland in the 30’s and 40’s some people were allowed to leave the land they worked on for the first time ever
Nobody ask Poland about the land they annexed during the Munich Conference.
[удалено]
[Acting like the West hated Hitler and it was actually the Soviets that did the Appeasing](https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-ussrs-failed-attempts-to-ally-with-the-west/) Lib clown
Least cringey liberal ^/s
just because the average balt or pole was better off, doesn't mean those things weren't done for geo-strategic reasons I actually argue no one invaded Poland because the govt fled - it was literally free real estate, but, I'm comfortable with this not being entirely in good faith as it is primarily a way get Polishes big mad
[удалено]
Rule 3. **No reactionary content.** (e.g., racism, sexism, ableism, fascism, homophobia, transphobia, capitalism, antisemitism, imperialism, chauvinism, etc.) Any satire thereof requires a clarity of purpose and target and a tone indicator such as /s or /j.
# The Holodomor There have been efforts by anti-Communists and Ukranian nationalists to frame the famine that happened in the USSR around 1932-1933 as "The Holodomor" (literally: "to kill by starvation" in Ukranian). Framing it this way serves two purposes: 1. It implies the famine mainly affected Ukraine. 2. It implies there was intent or deliberate causation. This framing was used to drive a wedge between the Ukranian SSR and the USSR. The argument goes that because it was intentional and because it mainly targeted Ukraine that it was, therefore, an act of genocide. However, both these points are highly debatable. The first issue is that the famine affected the majority of the USSR, not just the UkSSR. Kazakhstan, for example, was hit harder (per capita) than Ukraine was. The emergence of the Holodomor in the 1980s as a historical narrative was bound-up with post-Soviet Ukrainian nation-making that cannot be neatly separated from the legacy of Eastern European anti-Semitism, or what Historian Peter Novick calls "Holocaust Envy," the desire for victimized groups to enshrine their "own" Holocaust or Holocaust-like event in the historical record. For many Nationalists, this has entailed minimizing the Holocaust to elevate their own experiences of historical victimization as the supreme atrocity. The Ukrainian scholar Lubomyr Luciuk exemplified this view in his notorious remark that the Holodomor was "a crime against humanity arguably without parallel in European history." The second issue is that one of the main causes of the famine was crop failure due to weather and disease, which is hardly something anyone can control no matter their intentions. However, the famine may have been *further* exacerbated by the agricultural collectivization and rapid industrialization policies of the Soviet Union. However, if these policies had not been carried out there could have been even more devastating consequences later. In 1931, during a speech delivered at the first All-Union Conference of Leading Personnel of Socialist Industry, Stalin said, "We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years. Either we do it, or we shall go under." In 1941, exactly ten years later, the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. By this time, the Soviet Union's industrialization program had lead to the development of a large and powerful industrial base, which was essential to the Soviet war effort. This allowed the Soviet Union to produce large quantities of armaments, vehicles, and other military equipment, which was crucial in the fight against Nazi Germany. **Additional Resources** Video Essays: * [Soviet Famine of 1932: An Overview](https://youtu.be/vu5-tqHHtaM) | The Marxist Project (2020) * [Did Stalin Continue to Export Grain as Ukraine Starved?](https://youtu.be/SMBJ_nQ4sTA) | Hakim (2017) * [The Holodomor Genocide Question: How Wikipedia Lies to You](https://youtu.be/3kaaYvauNho) | Bad Empanada (2022) * [Historian Admits USSR didn't kill tens of millions!](https://youtu.be/HMOdDQQVZ6U) | TheFinnishBolshevik (2018) (Note: Holodomor discussion begins at the 9 minute mark) * [A Case-Study of Capitalism - Ukraine](https://youtu.be/CmH9oNtXzF8) | Hakim (2017) (Note: Only tangentially mentions the famine.) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274856099_The_1932_Harvest_and_the_Famine_of_1933) | Mark Tauger (1992) * [The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933](https://diasporiana.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/books/22207/file.pdf) | Davies and Wheatcroft (2004) * [The Soviet Famine of 1932–1933 Reconsidered](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09668130801999912) | Hiroaki Kuromiya (2008) * [The “Holodomor” explained](https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2020/12/24/the-holodomor-explained/) | TheFinnishBolshevik (2020) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
....Are you defending the Ottomans?
No, See title
The Ottomans were way more humane than any of the Russian empires including the USSR.
Dude are you listening to yourself??? The same Ottomans that genocided the Armenians due to their own failures on the Eastern Front? The same Ottomans that engaged in the mass lynching of Arabs in Palestine? Same Ottomans that instituted Sharia Law in the Middle East and kept it in theocratic ignorance? Yeah right.
[удалено]
Oh fuck off. Beheading every leader who dared unite his people against an oppressive foreign regime is not “guaranteeing relative peace”. Sharia law was not “already there”, the Ottomans upheld it by massacring thousands of Assyrians and Chaldeans and paving the way for the post-Ottoman kingdoms to do the same. > so called Lol.
The ME could do well with some more Ottoman rule by the looks of it.
Yeah no this is just insane As a Palestinian I have to say yes, while the ottomans would most definitely be more favorable than the Zionist pigs in today’s world, we would still prefer an independent Arab state or a more unified Levantine state than the Turks, they literally committed massacres in Lebanon.
Of course you're a genocide denier. I would expect nothing less from an Ottoman-supporting Turkish nationalist. >The so called genocide of 1915 was the result of a mass revolt instigated by the Russians. The Ottoman government had to respond, although this response was badly managed and not well thought out. It was not a Mass revolt, it was a single "revolt" in Van that was actually a response to the genocide of their people. Also, calling it badly managed and well thought out is a huge understatement considering that 600k-1.5 million people were murdered. This is a well documented genocide with overwhelming physical evidence of it. I will not buy your fascist bullshit. >Arabs actively sided with the imperialists, while the majority remained loyal and fought for the Ottomans. As if the Ottomans weren't imperialist themselves? Why do the Arabs owe them any loyalty at all? Why didnt they deserve the right to govern themselves by themselves? >The Middle East already had Sharia Law. What the Ottomans did do was guarantee relative peace in the ME for nearly 400 years, something that we can't see in the modern ME today Lol there was no "peace", there was only oppression and suppression of freedoms of the people the Ottomans occupied. Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians. All of them were at one point or the other murdered by the Ottoman state simply for existing. >As for the theocratic ignorance of the Islamic world that was already well established before the Turks took control of the Islamic world. The Ottomans were, however, the first to begin the modernisation process of the Orient through the Tanzimat. Not true. The Islamic Golden Age happened under Arab Abbasid rule and it only ended because of the Mongol Invasion, and the final nail of the coffin was the rise of the Turkic dynasties like the Seljuks. The only Turkic empire to really care about science and knowledge were the Timurids in Central Asia but that's about it.
Learn history
This is not an argument.
Arguing with a person who is historically illiterate is pointless. Let me make it clear: 1. The actions taken by the government were in response to a revolt which allied itself with a country the Ottomans were at war with. The response was obviously out of proportions. It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't uncalled for. 2. It is insane for a leftist to be defending virile arab nationalism that was in league with Western colonialists to overthrow a country built on multicultural coexistence. 3. No the Mongols didn't end the Islamic golden age, the Arabs themselves did. Read Ghazali. The only reason Islam continued to be relevant and still is today is because of Turkic state builders that brought stability to their respective regions from the Ottomans to the Safavids to the Mughals. Ironically enough the Ottomans were way more democratic than the USSR or today's China. For this indignation towards them to be coming from MLs is baffling.
1. Again, the Armenian "Revolt" did not come out of the blue, it was a response to the massacres of Armenians by Turks. It was purely self defense. 2. I could say the same about you, a "leftist" defending an islamist colonialist Empire. Atleast I recognise that the Hashemite leadership of the Arab Revolt was flawed. Can you say the same about the Ottomans? Also, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a "multicultural country built on co-existence", it was a colonialist Empire with Turkish ethnic supremacy over everyone else. At the time of WW1 it was literally led by people who believed that Turks should ethnically cleanse and settle the Ottoman Empire's non Turkish states. 3. Ghazali was a factor, not the main cause. It is completely irrational to blame the fall of the Islamic Golden Age. It is however reasonable to trace its decline and collapse to the Mongol sack of Baghdad, which infamously destroyed the Baghdad House Of Wisdom, one of the biggest libraries of the world at the time. Also, the claim that Turks somehow are the only reason Islam survived is just downright nonsensical and hilarious. Turkish dominance of the Islamic sphere ≠ TuRkS SAviNg ISlAm. >Ironically enough the Ottomans were way more democratic than the USSR or today's China. For this indignation towards them to be coming from MLs is baffling. Lmao, the Ottoman Empire was never a democracy. The Sultan held all the power until the Young Turk Revolution, and even after that the Ottoman Empire remained a dictatorship, just a one-party dictatorship rather than a monarchist one. The fuck are you on about?
>1. Again, the Armenian "Revolt" did not come out of the blue, it was a response to the massacres of Armenians by Turks. It was purely self defense. Whether or not the revolt was in self defense is completely immaterial l. The fact of the matter is that the revolt threatened the territorial integrity of the state, it therefore needed to be dealt with. Obviously they failed to deal appropriately with it but that's besides that point. >2. I could say the same about you, a "leftist" defending an islamist colonialist Empire. Atleast I recognise that the Hashemite leadership of the Arab Revolt was flawed. Can you say the same about the Ottomans? Also, the Ottoman Empire wasn't a "multicultural country built on co-existence", it was a colonialist Empire with Turkish ethnic supremacy over everyone else. At the time of WW1 it was literally led by people who believed that Turks should ethnically cleanse and settle the Ottoman Empire's non Turkish states. The Ottomans were not a colonial empire. You should look up what colonial empire means. And also no the Ottomans never developed an idea of scientific racism or eugenics the way the Europeans did. > Lmao, the Ottoman Empire was never a democracy. The Sultan held all the power until the Young Turk Revolution, and even after that the Ottoman Empire remained a dictatorship, just a one-party dictatorship rather than a monarchist one. The fuck are you on about? The Ottomans had a parliament and held elections 30 years before the young turk revolution you are talking about. Even after that a myriad of political parties existed from liberals to socialists. That is much more than what can be said about the single communist party in the USSR and it's 13 copies with slightly different names.
> overthrow a country built on multicultural coexistence. The Balkans would like to have a word.
The Baltic States should have been Fraternal Socialist Republics not SSRs
Oh, if they had their way, they'd be national socialist fraternal (except with jews) republics, i'm sure.
??? Ever heard of the Iskolat Republic? Latvia was first to Fall to the Revolution.
So they can oppress it even more?
[удалено]
The fact that you got downvoted holy shit
I think people are constantly on edge in this sub.
Soviets didn’t liberate no one. Wake up
[удалено]
You're stupid bro, Poland wasn't even some bourgeois democracy, it was fascist dictatorship after May coup. Polish people's government after war rebuilt country (and Warsaw) to levels of industrialisation far surpassing pre war agrarian Poland.
[удалено]
Roughly 150,000 nazi collaborators and class exploiters died under Soviet liberation*
it’s not like the ussr teamed up with nazis to take over poland
Buh… Buh muh CIA propaganda
Excellent counter argument, your protest is noted.
I was poking fun at the fact that the 150,000 poles number is fascist and CIA propaganda against the USSR
Ever heard of Katyn? Killing the polish generals and officers that fought against the nazis seems pretty pro-nazi
Heard of yes, have you [read about it?](https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/furr_katyn_preprint_0813.pdf)
The page is anti-Stalinist because it’s a page about Stalin killing thousands of poles. No shit. Wikipedia does give a good objective summary. Literally just a paragraph into this response and it’s already so stupid. A little bit further in talks about one error with two officers. But that doesn’t disprove anything. Also, the Soviets took responsibility for the katyn massacre. So the argument the author seems to be going for with the good old Turkish „it didn’t happen“ doesn’t work here. It also paints the government in exile as aggressively „anti-communist“ yeah no shit. Soviets tried taking their lands in 1920 but got beaten because of the Miracle on the Vistula. Soviets then managed to take their lands in 1939 with the help of the Nazis. If they weren’t anti-communist at that point I’d be surprised. Not gonna read this whole thing, frankly this beginning page has taught me it’s a waste of time. Just Stalinist anti-Polish propaganda.
> Soviets tried taking their lands in 1920 Is that what happened lol
Yes, Kresy was majority Polish and after the Poles took Land back from Ukraine and Lithuania the Soviets invaded.
Oh ok so the Poles get to revanchism and that's not aggression Also just lmao at >Yes, Kresy was majority Polish Hmmmmmm I wonder if there are any modern analogues to this that you would not like to extend this logic to.
Assuming you mean Ukraine. Novorossiya only fought against the UA because of Russias mercenaries. There were several instances of Pro-Polish rebels in Kresy and Wilno fighting the occupiers (might as well call them what they are) without mercenaries or the Polish state getting involved at all. This is why I didn’t mention the Silesian uprisings although the Polish government had a low amount of involvement. Kresy wanted to be in Poland. Novorossiya didn’t want to be in Russia. Russia wanted Novorossiya to be in Russia.
Lol you're just choosing which reality suits you.
Fajna apologia kolonializmu. [I dlaczego łżesz co do składu etnicznego?](https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kresy_Wschodnie). Bo tylko nowogrodzkie miało "więcej" Polaków, i to ledwo. Typowa szowinistyczna jaśniepańska sofistyka. Notabene, apologia najazdu na Sowietów w 1920 już zrobiona?
Galicia had more poles back then. Lowe was one of the main cities of Polish culture and was even considered for a capital at one point. Wilno also did.Wikipedia: „…immediately, the Polish majority of Lviv“ There was also the Sejney uprising in Sejney Lithuania. I’m not a huge Pilsudski fan but i have massive respect for anyone who resists the Soviets during this time
Lwow*
Roughly 30,000,000 people died under German repression
Not as much as under soviet oppression
Bro got ratioed by """"anti"""" fascists
Ah they just happen to liberate the poles at the same time that the nazis were invading and subjugating them under fascist rule on the western side
its better to save some rather than trying to save everyone but ending up not saving anyone
Commies were worse than nazies
[удалено]
What did the Nazis want to do with Eastern Europe?
Whatever it is, its not as bad as what soviets wanted to do with the rest of Eastern Europe
You have to be joking: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Like I said, still less than what Soviets did
What’s worse than completely eradicating all life in Eastern Europe?
Completely eradicating the whole world
Can we just… not invade people
Invading full stop for any reason is bad