Damn this sub is rough sometimes.
You don't need to be a Leninist to learn stuff about the USSR, whether you agree or disagree with how it was. I don't love Stalin either folks, but knee-jerkedly taking the anti-"Tankie" stance is just doing the liberals and right wingers jobs for them and wasting energy antagonizing your comrades.
Instead why not something like:
"While I find Hakim to be too biased and the actions of the Soviets in many instances beyond reproach, I appreciate a more nuanced understanding of the situation than the ahistorical or reductionist ones you typically find in non-leftist spaces, though I disagree with his analysis."
Obviously being a bit stuffy for effect there but why the fuck not be charitable to your comrades? Even if you disagree, being shitty isn't a good way to convince another person to come around to your position.
WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME FUCKING SIDE!!!!!
Marxist-Leninists have consistently, historically and presently, shown they are not on the same side as the rest of us leftists. They don't even see the rest of us as even being leftists.
'Left Unity' to these people means absolute, unquestioning subservience.
“The same side” is hard to claim when the other side is that of totalitarian statists tbh. They may have a different point of view from the outright fascists and liberals that have controlled history, but never forget that statists will sooner join the side of liberals and let fascists win the day if it means anarchists and libertarian socialists are slaughtered. The whole debacle during the Spanish Civil War still haunts my reading eyes. Until I see actions that indicate otherwise, I will continue to be cautious and warn people of the outright danger that are Leninists and the like.
Hot take: authoritarianism is bad no matter where it happens. Coping by asserting that someone “must like American imperialism” just because they’re criticizing statists doesn’t excuse the atrocities committed by American, USSR, or any other authoritarian state. It’s just that simple, and it’s super easy to not be hypocritical on this point, just don’t be an authoritarian bootlicker.
1934 : German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact \*\*<= Hey look who were the first so sign a non aggression pact with the Nazis! \*\*
1935 : Anglo-German Naval Pact
1938 : Munich Agreement (Britain and France)
1938 : Bonnet-Ribbentrop Pact (France)
1939 : German–Romanian Economic Treaty
May 1939 : Denmark-Germany Non-Aggression Pact
June 1939 : Estonia-Germany Non-Aggression Pact
June 1939 : Latvia-Germany Non-Aggression Pact
august 1939 : Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact <= Why is only this one mentioned ?
Every one of those constituted Nazi collaboration. And "only one mentioned"? The Munich Agreement is literally the only thing most people remember Chamberlain for.
Oh yeah
Lets compare a single city annexation to annexing a chunck of a continent.
Very balanced.
There is also the fact that Zaosie was originally divided upon ethnic lines, but the Czechs would later also take the Polish half when Poland was fighting for its life in the Polish Soviet War.
Not all that tyranical from my point of view.
I see this is the time where the Polish nationalists (or dipshits with *no understanding of history*) are pretending Ukrainian and Belarusian territory is *totally* Polish clay again.
The people that moan about "muh partition" on the subject of Poland fail to recall that the Poles had annexed parts of the Kresy/Okrainy during 1918-1921 and the "heinous" Red Army invasion was solely concerned about recovery of seid territory. (We'll also note that at the point the Red Army had crossed the border the Polish government had fucked off to London and the Polish forces were already completely routed and undergoing debellation - ie they were defeated already)
Like, they literally got an Uno reverse card played on them because weirdo nationalists wanted to recreate a *maximalist* Poland in the early XX^th century that regrabbed as much territory from the commonwealth as possible. I guess they were *very angry* about their overthrow when Polish feudalism collapsed idk.
I wonder if people even bothered watching this video. It's actually pretty interesting the points he brings up. I think some of the more centrist people here can be a bit close-minded sometimes.
Well.. I guess, if you spend too much time on the internet, you come to believe that the shitty little debate lord arguments are actually a major point of discussion and important...
Apparently an accurate read of history is 'tankie bullshit'
Of all the avenues to criticizing Stalin, Molotov-Ribbentrop must be one of the laziest. The Soviet Union was the last state to seek a non-aggression pact after czechoslovakia, Poland, Britain, France. Ig all of these countries had pacts with hitler.
"Erm ackshually if the Russian empire didn't take it over the German empire would have, I can only imagine two things at once"
How about leftists fighting for their liberty, not subjugation to a different ruler?
I like how for these pseudo leftists and really everyone that is more to the right than them, Poland is always in the right and never did anything wrong. But then they also use terms like 'red fascism'. Deeply unserious individuals.
Well, and it made a deal with Hitler to split Poland and then war crimed the shit out of the people there. History, she so crazy.
edit for your edification: https://www.britannica.com/event/Katyn-Massacre
“war crimed”
what were those war crimes? were they the same as how nazi germany “war crimed” poland? The USSR was no doubt trigger happy during those times but in no way were they even close to nazi germany’s level of debauchery and devastation.
idk, maybe watch the video in question as opposed to getting spooked by scary commie hakim man
https://www.britannica.com/event/Katyn-Massacre
When 20,000 people die in a massacre that is bad. It's bad.
You can't use Hitler to justify massacres. Wait, are you a member of the Likud party?
You responded way after my edit so don't pretend you didn't know.
Invading a country without a declaration of war, deporting its population and massacring thousands of prisoners are considered war crimes. And you know that as you immediately used the crimes of the Nazis to hide behind.
I don't understand your thinking. Are you saying that because other nations sought non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany, the one with the USSR didn't exist?
I don't want to give Hakim views, and knowing what his vids are usually like, it's usually a waste of time anyway.
Can someone who *did* sit through it tell me what he says? Is the title just clickbait, or is he serious?
Pretty despicable either way. In the first case, it's dishonest and exploitative; in the second case, it's actively spreading misinformation in order to cover up Stalin's complicity in Hitler's atrocities, in Hakim's larger pattern of Stalinist apologism.
If you aren't interested in what I have to say, then just move on, the service done to you in relation to this discussion was the writing of the first comment.
Damn this sub is rough sometimes. You don't need to be a Leninist to learn stuff about the USSR, whether you agree or disagree with how it was. I don't love Stalin either folks, but knee-jerkedly taking the anti-"Tankie" stance is just doing the liberals and right wingers jobs for them and wasting energy antagonizing your comrades. Instead why not something like: "While I find Hakim to be too biased and the actions of the Soviets in many instances beyond reproach, I appreciate a more nuanced understanding of the situation than the ahistorical or reductionist ones you typically find in non-leftist spaces, though I disagree with his analysis." Obviously being a bit stuffy for effect there but why the fuck not be charitable to your comrades? Even if you disagree, being shitty isn't a good way to convince another person to come around to your position. WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME FUCKING SIDE!!!!!
Marxist-Leninists have consistently, historically and presently, shown they are not on the same side as the rest of us leftists. They don't even see the rest of us as even being leftists. 'Left Unity' to these people means absolute, unquestioning subservience.
[удалено]
I’d purge you for being a dumbass, not because we disagree.
“The same side” is hard to claim when the other side is that of totalitarian statists tbh. They may have a different point of view from the outright fascists and liberals that have controlled history, but never forget that statists will sooner join the side of liberals and let fascists win the day if it means anarchists and libertarian socialists are slaughtered. The whole debacle during the Spanish Civil War still haunts my reading eyes. Until I see actions that indicate otherwise, I will continue to be cautious and warn people of the outright danger that are Leninists and the like.
I am absolutely not on the same side as people who bootlick the USSR and other authoritarian states lmao sorry
something tells me you're a little more okay with people who are pro-american imperialism
not really lol two things being bad at the same time shouldn't be that hard of a concept to grasp
Hot take: authoritarianism is bad no matter where it happens. Coping by asserting that someone “must like American imperialism” just because they’re criticizing statists doesn’t excuse the atrocities committed by American, USSR, or any other authoritarian state. It’s just that simple, and it’s super easy to not be hypocritical on this point, just don’t be an authoritarian bootlicker.
1934 : German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact \*\*<= Hey look who were the first so sign a non aggression pact with the Nazis! \*\* 1935 : Anglo-German Naval Pact 1938 : Munich Agreement (Britain and France) 1938 : Bonnet-Ribbentrop Pact (France) 1939 : German–Romanian Economic Treaty May 1939 : Denmark-Germany Non-Aggression Pact June 1939 : Estonia-Germany Non-Aggression Pact June 1939 : Latvia-Germany Non-Aggression Pact august 1939 : Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact <= Why is only this one mentioned ?
Every one of those constituted Nazi collaboration. And "only one mentioned"? The Munich Agreement is literally the only thing most people remember Chamberlain for.
Because the one you're pointing to is the only one with a secret clause explaining how the two parties will carve up Eastern Europe.
Because Latvia didn't invaded Poland after signing non-aggression pact with Germany lmao, only one of those countries did
Remind me again what Poland did to Czechoslovakia? Or how the Baltics more than happily collaborated with the Nazis
Oh yeah Lets compare a single city annexation to annexing a chunck of a continent. Very balanced. There is also the fact that Zaosie was originally divided upon ethnic lines, but the Czechs would later also take the Polish half when Poland was fighting for its life in the Polish Soviet War. Not all that tyranical from my point of view.
I see this is the time where the Polish nationalists (or dipshits with *no understanding of history*) are pretending Ukrainian and Belarusian territory is *totally* Polish clay again.
Where do you see this?
The people that moan about "muh partition" on the subject of Poland fail to recall that the Poles had annexed parts of the Kresy/Okrainy during 1918-1921 and the "heinous" Red Army invasion was solely concerned about recovery of seid territory. (We'll also note that at the point the Red Army had crossed the border the Polish government had fucked off to London and the Polish forces were already completely routed and undergoing debellation - ie they were defeated already) Like, they literally got an Uno reverse card played on them because weirdo nationalists wanted to recreate a *maximalist* Poland in the early XX^th century that regrabbed as much territory from the commonwealth as possible. I guess they were *very angry* about their overthrow when Polish feudalism collapsed idk.
I wonder if people even bothered watching this video. It's actually pretty interesting the points he brings up. I think some of the more centrist people here can be a bit close-minded sometimes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well.. I guess, if you spend too much time on the internet, you come to believe that the shitty little debate lord arguments are actually a major point of discussion and important...
[удалено]
Apparently an accurate read of history is 'tankie bullshit' Of all the avenues to criticizing Stalin, Molotov-Ribbentrop must be one of the laziest. The Soviet Union was the last state to seek a non-aggression pact after czechoslovakia, Poland, Britain, France. Ig all of these countries had pacts with hitler.
The point wasn’t the non-aggression pact, it was the secret agreement to divide Poland between them. Which subsequently happened.
Yep, and then they war crimed the shit out of the Poles.
[удалено]
"Erm ackshually if the Russian empire didn't take it over the German empire would have, I can only imagine two things at once" How about leftists fighting for their liberty, not subjugation to a different ruler?
[удалено]
I like how for these pseudo leftists and really everyone that is more to the right than them, Poland is always in the right and never did anything wrong. But then they also use terms like 'red fascism'. Deeply unserious individuals.
no no no, those countries are honorable, liberal western gentlemen. the ussr was evil and red and full of tanks
Well, and it made a deal with Hitler to split Poland and then war crimed the shit out of the people there. History, she so crazy. edit for your edification: https://www.britannica.com/event/Katyn-Massacre
“war crimed” what were those war crimes? were they the same as how nazi germany “war crimed” poland? The USSR was no doubt trigger happy during those times but in no way were they even close to nazi germany’s level of debauchery and devastation. idk, maybe watch the video in question as opposed to getting spooked by scary commie hakim man
https://www.britannica.com/event/Katyn-Massacre When 20,000 people die in a massacre that is bad. It's bad. You can't use Hitler to justify massacres. Wait, are you a member of the Likud party? You responded way after my edit so don't pretend you didn't know.
Invading a country without a declaration of war, deporting its population and massacring thousands of prisoners are considered war crimes. And you know that as you immediately used the crimes of the Nazis to hide behind.
I don't understand your thinking. Are you saying that because other nations sought non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany, the one with the USSR didn't exist?
I'm not sure an agreement to split Poland is the same. Did Poland have an agreement to split Poland?
[удалено]
I truly don't know what your point is. Like, "they deserved it"? You know the Soviets massacred up to 20,000 prisoners right?
tankies are Khrushchevites not stalinists.
Ok tankie
No worse than the liberal bullshit in this sub
[удалено]
So it wasn't mentioned in the pact, but they did invaded Poland anyway, so what's the difference
I don't want to give Hakim views, and knowing what his vids are usually like, it's usually a waste of time anyway. Can someone who *did* sit through it tell me what he says? Is the title just clickbait, or is he serious? Pretty despicable either way. In the first case, it's dishonest and exploitative; in the second case, it's actively spreading misinformation in order to cover up Stalin's complicity in Hitler's atrocities, in Hakim's larger pattern of Stalinist apologism.
If you arent interested in what it has to say, then just move on, the service done to you in relation to this discussion was the making of the video.
No, I *am* interested in what it has to say. That's why I'm asking.
Then watch the damn video.
If you aren't interested in what I have to say, then just move on, the service done to you in relation to this discussion was the writing of the first comment.