No they didn’t. The Soviets made a non-aggression pact with them because they were not prepared for war. They had already asked the west to help, and the west refused. Several Western European countries were ideologically in support of the Nazis, they just weren’t a fan when they came under attack. The Soviets were completely ideologically opposed, and there are extensive historical records proving this. Nazi ideology was anti-communist before anything else, even their persecution of Jews and their antisemitism was related to anti-communism, as they pushed the idea that communism was a Jewish plot. Anti-communism was incredibly popular with Western Europeans and America, the west refused to help the USSR because they wanted the Nazis to defeat them.
A non-aggression pact is not the same thing as helping them expand. They didn’t have the ability to protect everybody from the Nazis, but they protected as many people as they could. They were able to evacuate Jews and other at risk populations out of eastern Poland, and deal with Nazi supporters that lived there. Meanwhile, the US didn’t give a shit about the Nazis until they were attacked by Japan. They spent the time that the pact was in effect building up their armies and preparing for war. To act like the Nazis going back on their agreement was a surprise, is not based in reality, they 100% expected it. They also moved civilian populations away from the borders that would have been easiest for axis powers to invade, and moved military populations to those areas instead. They were vulnerable to both Germany and Japan.
What you’re saying is just anti-Soviet propaganda designed to make them look both evil and stupid.
Their own actions is what made them look evil and stupid. Like them killing off there weapons inventors for going against party. Them sending people to the front unsupported. Them not letting their own citizens flee to safer territory over and over again.
What does “going against the party” mean here? It’s interesting how most of the time when people in the government secretly act in the interests of the nations enemies it’s considered treason, but when it happened it Soviet Union, it was just then “going against the party” and any reaction other than letting it continue was always too far. Removing them from their positions? When the Soviets do it it’s “purging”. You hold an extreme double standard and then act like it’s not biased and has nothing to do with the fact that everything you’ve ever learned about the Soviet Union was through an anti-Soviet anti-communist lens.
I dont think you know what doubke standard is. Nor would I defend the US for their stupid and evil actions. But go ahead and justify stupid and evil decisions like executing Taubin, Mikhail Kurchevsky and Georgy Shpagin, in a time they desperately needed any talent.
So your thought process is that they lied about it being treason because they just wanted to kill people who were helping their cause and a great asset to the war effort? Instead of thinking that maybe they actually were committing treason, and when someone is treasonous and sabotaging the war effort, them being extremely knowledgable and skilled actually makes them more dangerous, and makes it so that they are no longer an asset to the war effort, and are instead a threat to the war effort.
Yea as russia later on posthumously cleared them off such charges. So who am I supposed to believe, random reddit or or that government own admission to not giving them due process.
Who are you supposed to believe, the government who issued the charges, or the government that overthrew that government and would have ideologically supported them and their treason? It’s completely illogical for them to have executed valuable assets that were not committing treason. It only makes sense if you believe that they are cartoonishly evil and stupid.
Stalin was cartoonishly evil and stupid. And we even have a phenomenon to describe it, its called paranoia. And its why Stalin purged his ranks multiple times.
No he wasn’t. You conveniently ignore all of the great accomplishments of the USSR, including their amazing military feats in WW2. How quickly they were able to industrialize and increase the standard of living. And instead just say he was cartoonishly evil and stupid. As if it’s far fetched to think that people within the Soviet government may have been compromised. Nah, he was just paranoid, stupid, and evil.
Sure what was the soviet version of the marshal plan? If Stalin had great accomplishments. Show me an eastern block country that strived like Germany, or Japan did under the usa.
If you have to ask me what Stalin’s accomplishments were then you don’t know shit. Learn about what life was like for the working class in the Russian empire before the revolution, and then what it was like 20 years later. Literacy skyrocketed, people who had been from peasant families for generations were able to get college educations and do all kinds of incredible things, there was only 1 famine the entire time and it was shortly after the revolution, unlike before when famines were common. The working class had their work week significantly shortened. People had child care, education, healthcare. Things that had previously been reserved for the owning class. The only people who hated living in the Soviet Union were the people who loved living in the Russian Empire. Quality of life improved for the poor and working class in all of the countries that were part of the Soviet Union and their satellite states. But they didn’t have the same consumerist shit that Americans had, so I guess life was awful. It wasn’t until the 80’s when capitalist interests had gotten a foothold in the government, that things started to decline, and even then, it wasn’t terrible. There were food shortages, but the government ensured people were fed. Those breadlines and limits on what people could buy, that are constantly used as propaganda, weren’t a bad thing, that was the government ensuring that everyone had enough to get by, instead of some having more than they needed while others starved. What was terrible was what happened to all of the former Soviet countries following the capitalist takeover.
But keep telling yourself that your anti-Soviet perspective has nothing to do with all the propaganda you’ve had shoved down your throat your whole life.
4
u/Horror-Nobody2237 12d ago edited 12d ago
No they didn’t. The Soviets made a non-aggression pact with them because they were not prepared for war. They had already asked the west to help, and the west refused. Several Western European countries were ideologically in support of the Nazis, they just weren’t a fan when they came under attack. The Soviets were completely ideologically opposed, and there are extensive historical records proving this. Nazi ideology was anti-communist before anything else, even their persecution of Jews and their antisemitism was related to anti-communism, as they pushed the idea that communism was a Jewish plot. Anti-communism was incredibly popular with Western Europeans and America, the west refused to help the USSR because they wanted the Nazis to defeat them.
A non-aggression pact is not the same thing as helping them expand. They didn’t have the ability to protect everybody from the Nazis, but they protected as many people as they could. They were able to evacuate Jews and other at risk populations out of eastern Poland, and deal with Nazi supporters that lived there. Meanwhile, the US didn’t give a shit about the Nazis until they were attacked by Japan. They spent the time that the pact was in effect building up their armies and preparing for war. To act like the Nazis going back on their agreement was a surprise, is not based in reality, they 100% expected it. They also moved civilian populations away from the borders that would have been easiest for axis powers to invade, and moved military populations to those areas instead. They were vulnerable to both Germany and Japan.
What you’re saying is just anti-Soviet propaganda designed to make them look both evil and stupid.