• ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was not societ “collaboration” with the Nazis. It was a self-preserving, non-aggression treaty between a rising fascist empire hell-bent on destroying workers movements like communism as all fascists are and a young workers movement that had been besieged since it’s inception. It gave them the time they needed to industrialize and prepare for the inevitable war with the Germans which they sacrificed so much for. 80% of Nazis were killed by the red army and 27 million soviets died for it.

    Calling that pact collaboration is incredibly direspectful to their history and reveals a severe lack of understanding in both politics and the material situation of those societies at the time.

    • Lad@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yup. I hate historical revisionism. The pact was strategic, not a tacit approval of Nazism.

      Even if you view it from the German point of view, it was the same. Hitler didn’t suddenly like Communism for a short while. He had to build up his forces for invasion.

      • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Yeah territory definitely has no strategic value when you are preparing for war against your largest ideological enemy 💀

        I never said it was great, just that you were severely misrepresenting it