politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The core reason the joint German-Soviet Union invasion of Poland is relevant is it shows the Soviets working with the Nazis. You portray them as being the first and primary countries willing to fight the Nazis, yet they were literally partnering with the Nazis for years while others had declared war on them. It wasn't until Germany invaded the Soviet Union that the Soviets switched teams.
If that is a point we can't agree on, then there isn't much more going to happen here.
Edit: going to just post the timeline again:
23 Aug 1939 - Germany and Soviet Union sign a non-agression pact
1 Sept 1939 - Germany invades Poland
3 Sept 1939 - France and UK declare war on Germany (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
17 Sept 1939 - Soviet Union invades Poland (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
10 May 1940 - Germany invades France (Soviets still have a non-aggression pact with Germany)
22 Jun 1941 - Germany invades the Soviet Union and the non-agression pact between the Soviets and Germans is terminated
After the evidence I've shown you, calling it "invading Poland together with the Nazis" is honestly just lying. Ignoring that the territories returned were Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Belarusian for the overwhelming part is simply twisting history. It's not "innocent poles getting oppressed by soviets", it's Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians being saved from Nazi invasion by Soviets. Again, answer this one question: what was the alternative to Soviet occupation of Eastern "Poland". Please answer that.
You're dishonest by refusing to entertaining the idea that the Soviets, as stated by Churchill, Chamberlain and Roosevelt, were not "collabbing with the Nazis", but instead simply buying time to prepare for war. Evidence of the Soviet antifascist intervention on the opposite corner of the continent in the Spanish Civil War, the Litvinov doctrine, the collective security policy, pursued, the fact that the lands "invaded" weren't even Polish for the most part, the mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia that made them want to start a collective war against Nazis which France refused, or asking yourself what was the alternative to Soviet occupation of the territories of Eastern Poland, none of this is enough.
And it's not enough because you're dishonest with your approach, because your starting point is "USSR bad, how can I justify this", instead of "let's look at the facts and reach a conclusion". It doesn't matter to you that Ukrainians and Belarusians overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the Soviet Union, you'll still call them "unfree" because USSR bad. It doesn't matter that the USSR saved Europe from fascism at the horrible cost of 25mn deaths, USSR bad. It doesn't matter that literally every country in Europe had mutual nonaggression pacts with the Nazis at some point, history begins in 1939 and ends in 1941 because USSR bad. Munich Agreements don't matter, Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania doesnt matter, France rejecting to honor the Munich agreements doesnt matter, Spanish civil war doesn't matter. Nothing matters, except for a 2-year interval in which the USSR was not at war with the Nazis.
What a serious historical analysis. Good job.