• 0 Posts
  • 50 Comments
Joined 8 days ago
cake
Cake day: March 9th, 2025

help-circle



  • Wow, you’re doing some serious revisionism here.
    A non-aggression treaty literally is that, they were enemies and it bought time for Russia to arm itself.
    Keep focussing and obsessing on that and misrepresenting it to fit your narrative.

    It’s a small detail in the big picture and mostly brought up by the those idiots promoting the laughable horseshoe theory.
    Same as how they say nazis were socialist bcs of their name.

    In no way could those clear enemies be seen as ‘aligned’ and definitely not from something you imagine and want to see in that pact.
    It is the Soviets who went to war with the nazis of Germany and of your fascist country that was most certainly aligned with them, had nazi troops there and fought on their side.
    I’m done here




  • you seemingly hadn’t heard of the pact

    I’ve been to school and it’s invariably mentioned to make the BS claims you make.
    And I probably know better than you how Wikipedia works.
    NONE of the references show what they claim.
    The original texts talk about ‘spheres of influence’ in the tiny Baltics andthe rest is only about Poland.
    It even says:
    " The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments."
    That hardly sounds like ‘dividing Europe between them’.
    I could call that a deliberate misinterpretation.
    If you want countries making deals with the nazis that literally say they can annex them even look to the Brits and France. “Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and and defenses to Nazi Germany” is more like it.
    Funny how they never mention that or the dozen of other pacts with nazis, all of them before the Soviets.



  • They fully deserved to be invaded by the Soviets.
    They had a fascist regime indeed. Don’t go crying about the consequences of their own actions.
    And you only believe in democracy when it turns out how you want?
    Looks like fake democracy to me if they let them participate and then ban them AFTER they win.
    It’s exactly what the US did when they held ‘democratic elections’ in Afghanistan.
    The Taliban won despite all their meddling after which they annuled it and had to do it over again without them.

    What will happen in other countries, let’s say if the horrible AfD win in Germany, are they going to ban them then?
    Either you ban them before or honor the results.
    But that would break the illusion of having a real democracy.
    It’s clear only centrist results in the narrow overton window are tolerated.
    And you think it was better for Georgia when they basically got a French president puppet or that corrupt one who had to flee to fascist ukraine where he had to flee again for doing the same?
    They literally started a war with Russia.
    And somehow the west doesn’t mind extreme right when they are against Russia.
    They fully suported them in ukraine, turned out great for them didn’t it?










  • "They went in to Ukraine under the flag of denazification. "
    You said that as if it wasn’t true and stopping the ethnic cleansing of the large Russian speaking population wasn’t valid enough reason in itself.
    The other reason was demilitarisation.
    Also a valid reason since NATO expansion right next to them, undoubtably with nukes, is an existential threat.
    Russia gave them plenty of chances to prevent war but they didn’t listen.
    Never intended to honor the Minsk accords, as Merkel admitted, and only used it to buid up their army.
    It was the west that started this with their regime change coup and wanted this to happen.
    A proxy to be used and then thrown away.
    It is their usual MO.