DEATH TO ZIONAZIS
What about countries who didn’t succumb to fascism? That time period was rife with fascists.
Spain, England, random mini countries in Europe, America. All had fascist parties that lost their spunk in that time because they defeated them in the polls/fought them.
Nazis weren’t the only fascist group at the time. Very silly post. Lack of history understanding
Lack of history understanding
Does not seem to realize that Spain was taken over by fascists
???
The British empire committed far more atrocities than Nazi Germany could ever aspire to, and they did it all using a far more stable form for colonialism than fascism: parliamentary / bourgeios democracy.
The US genocided an entire continent under this model, something the nazis explicitly tried and failed to accomplish in eastern europe.
The only reason nazi germany is demonized while the british and US empires are not is because: nazi germany also attacked western europe (a big no-no), and that they lost (thanks to the USSR btw). So really all you can say about the fascists vs the other countries you mentioned is that fascism is a far less historically stable and successful model of government for colonialism, than parliamentary bourgeios democracy.
countries who didn’t succumb to fascism
Spain
Uh… I don’t know how to tell ya…
its only fascism if the victims are white
Removed by mod
You’re the one claiming that the uSSa during the jim crow era, britain during the bengal famine and francoist spain weren’t fascist lmfao like skim some wikipedia articles or something wth
Well the USA and Britain weren’t fascist though they were bourgeoise liberal democracies like Dessalines said. Francoist Spain was fascist, but with a more Catholic bent as opposed to Nazism which wanted to create a weird neo occult religion.
Like I said as long as the victims aren’t white you wouldn’t consider it fascism. Like is the fact that the white population got to vote on how to oppress supposed to make it less fascist for the oppressed?
Fascism isn’t just a term for people doing bad things though I hate to be that guy, but it was a distinct movement that started in the 20th century. Doesn’t excuse any of the atrocities committed but colonialism was initially carried out by European monarchs most white people didn’t get to vote for that. White people were constantly reconstituting their philosophical systems to explain why they actually had the right to enslave and exploit people. Shit goes back to the ancient Greeks.
Those debates also seems to end up with libs becoming nazis, since there’s growing number of them.
Stalin was probably the worst communist leader when he was alive. Not a good example.
How so? Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Khrushchev were all worse. Stalin solidified socialism in the first federation of socialist states, during their most tumultuous period. Most of the gains of socialism in the USSR were built under the Stalin-Era.
Stalin massacred at least 50 million White cishet capitalist men… and even that estimate is probably too low.
It’s actually 60 million, they went back in time and added more /s
⇧ literal Holodomor denial. Denying that Stalin exterminated 70 million White capitalist men is the same thing as Holocaust denial (except it’s actually way worse; the Holocaust wasn’t THAT bad)
You evil redfash tankie subhuman how can you downplay the 10 million billion innocents Stalin personally crushed to death with his big spoon after all the grain in Ukraine was scooped away. You Chinese Russian Ai Bot.
Actually, this is turbo-Holodomor denial, 80 million white capitalist men were turbo-killed.
In fact, at least 90 million kulaks were stomped into the ground by Red Army soldiers dancing cossack dance on them
And now 100 million, just to sound scary. Robert Conquest just entered the room.
To be clear, you’re talking about this period here, when the USSR defeated fascism and the average life expectancy rose from 35 to 60?
Chilling.
Ah yes, the part where the USSR defeated fascism right fucking after it allied with and was subsequently betrayed by fascism.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain 🙄
The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
Churchill did not take the Nazis as a serious threat, and was horrified when FDR and Stalin made a joke about executing Nazis. Churchill starved millions to death in India in preventable ways, and had this to say about it:
I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.
Meanwhile, the soviet famine in the 1930s was the last major famine outside of wartime in the USSR, because collectivized farming achieved food security in a region where famine was common. As a consequence, life expectancy doubled:
The Nazis and soviets were never allies. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance, and the non-aggression pact between the soviets and the Nazis was unique among the other non-aggression pacts in that it was on the eve of war. The soviets knew war was coming, and so bought more time to prepare.
tl;dr
Communists hate Nazis. Nazis hate communists
Oh my god look at all the allies hitler had. /s Even the US wanted to help them out with operation paperclip. Maybe the fact that the Soviets killed 75% of Nazis was just a bit of nazi infighting in your eyes.
[edit] lol whoops by the time I found the image and posted, cowbee had already made a much better comment with the same image
Non aggression pacts are not the same as allying with the Nazis. It also wasn’t a betrayal when the Nazis invaded. Destruction of the slavs and Lebensraum in eastern Europe was Hitler’s inevitable goal he ranted about it in meinkamf for fuck sake everyone knew it was happening eventually. The non aggression pact was necessary to delay the inevitable long enough to industrialise and build up a force to fight the Nazis largely alone as the western powers had continuously refused to form an anti nazi pact since 1933. The soviets were also the last major power to sign a non aggression pact with the Nazis. The USSR broke the nazi beast took the majority of the casualties and killed the most Nazis.
everyone knew it was happening eventually
Well, depending on what year we are talking, those that had “read and re-read Mein Kampf until he almost memorized it” like Litvinov in 1928 probably would have, but “[a]s late as 1936 […] Benes, Herriot, Daladier, Eden and others had not read it.” Not to mention “In October 1938—after Munich—Neville Chamberlain instructed the Foreign Office to translate some excerpts for him” (Pope, Maxim Litvinov, pp. 317–18. Quoted in Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins, chapter 4, note 14)
i did not know about your website, it’s awesome!!! i’ve been looking for these epubs for a long time.
It’s always a massive flex to be able to link epubs you’ve created, haha. Great work!
a long life is not necessarily a good one and some contributions and trade ie Medicinals, Antibiotics, etc were not caused by Stalin
Correlation not Causation
a long life is not necessarily a good one
If you want to see a liberal turn on a dime to become pro-death, simply be a communist and extend people’s lives
His point isn’t that stupid though, would you rather be 70 and have grown up in Gaza or be 70 in a none apartheid state. Obviously everybody wants to live as long as possible. Either way I kinda don’t care about the 1940s and why people are so obsessed with arguing about them is beyond me especially since I’m not an academic. We have our very own unique set of political problems we have to deal with now.
It was also the fact that healthcare was made universal, housing drastically improved, and famine was ended.
also that we started to educate people on how wounds can get infected, how deadly diseases are if not prevented and treated and we adopted hygiene and sterility precautions in hospitals
Sure, but the fact remains that the establishment of socialism under Lenin and solidified under Stalin had a dramatic impact on how these advances were distributed to the people, enabling a far greater access to medical care and necessities than before.
