this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
744 points (89.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

6328 readers
3051 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah, but that's after they made an alliance with Nazi Germany. An alliance Germany broke, not the USSR.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

A non-aggression pact is not so much of an alliance. Nazis are the ones who broke it anyway. US armed/financed German military-industrial complex.

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It was not just a pact of non aggression. They attacked Poland together, and shared its territory. It was an alliance.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact included (in secret) an agreement dividing Europe up into Nazi and Soviet halves preemptively.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

The USSR first sought an alliance with Britain and France which was rejected, so they signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Britain and France also signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, betraying one of their allies (Czechoslovakia) in exchange.

Should we take the fact that the US and USSR fought on the same side in WWII to say that they were always close friends and ideologically aligned, completely ignoring everything else? Because if anything that would be more reasonable to assert, because it never escalated to a hot war between the two.

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It wasn't just a pact of non-aggression. They divided Poland between themselves! France and Britain abandoned Czechoslovakia to avoid a war, USSR made an alliance with Nazi Germany to begin one.

And USSR and the US were on the same side because they were attacked by allied countries (Germany and Japan), they didn't chose one another. Stop your historical revisionism.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

I won't defend all of the USSR's actions, but it's absurd to suggest they were motivated by any sort of ideological alignment with the Nazis as opposed to self-interest and circumstance, in the same way that the US and USSR were motivated by a common interest rather than ideological alignment.

At basically every other moment in history, all across the globe, Marxists and fascists have been at each other's throats.

Nothing I've said is in the least bit "historical revisionism."

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Still, the USSR considered that an alliance with Nazi Germany was ideologically acceptable, even if they were not aligned. Because the only true ideology of USSR was to maintain its leaders in power, Marxism was just a facade. And that's will always ultimately the case with authoritarian governments.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Of course self-preservation was a priority for the USSR, as it is with any nation. Failure to achieve self-preservation would have meant being ruled by the Nazis.

Not sure how that in any way indicates that "Marxism was a facade."

[–] zloubida@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago

Self-preservation is something else than making an offensive alliance with Nazis.

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world -3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

The Soviet Union was not entitled to an alliance with partners they were at war with only a decade prior. Britain and France were at war with the entity that would become the Soviet Union until 1922, There was no reason to Trust an alliance from a state that was ideologically opposed to them and wanted to destroy their way of life.

But the Victim complex from the Russians is a venerable beast, it was as relevant in 1925 as it was in 2025.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how it's relevant whether or not the Soviets were "entitled" to an alliance. What matters is the fact that they attempted to negotiate one there first.

[–] DicJacobus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I can ask for a cup of sugar from the neighbor who I wrecked the car of last month. that neighbor is still within his reasonable rights to tell me to fuck off

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

Again, not relevant. The point is not how Britain and France responded, the point is that the Soviets chose to go to them first.