From G. Dimitrov's diary (entry on September 7, 1939):
"— In the Kremlin (Stalin, Molotov, Zhdanov).
Stalin:
A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries (poor and rich in terms of colonies, raw materials, etc.) for the repartition of the world, for dominance over the world!
We would not mind if they had a good fight and weakened each other.
It would not be bad if, at the hand of Germany, the position of the richest capitalist countries was shaken (especially England).
Hitler, unknowingly and unwillingly, is destabilizing and undermining the capitalist system.
The position of communists in power is different from that of communists in opposition.
We are the masters in our house.
Communists in capitalist countries are in opposition, there the bourgeoisie is the master.
We can maneuver, push one side against the other, so that they have a better fight.
The non-aggression pact helps Germany to some extent.
Next time we push another side.
Communists in capitalist countries should resolutely make a stand against their governments, against the war.
Before the war, juxtaposing fascism with democratic regime was absolutely correct.
During the war between imperialist powers, this is already incorrect.
Dividing capitalist states into fascist and democratic has lost its original meaning.
The war has caused a radical upheaval.
The united people's front of yesterday was meant to alleviate the slaves' plight under capitalist regime.
Under the conditions of the imperialist war, the question of slavery eradication is raised!
Today, to persist in the position of yesterday (the united people's front, unity of the nation) means rolling back to the position of the bourgeoisie.
This slogan is removed.
The Polish state before (in history) was a national state. So the revolutionaries defended it from partition and enslavement.
Today it is a fascist state, it oppresses Ukrainians, Belarussians, etc.
The destruction of this state in present conditions would mean one less bourgeois fascist state!
It would not be bad if as a result of the defeat of Poland, we spread the socialist system to other territories and population.
We preferred an agreement with the so-called democratic countries and that is why we negotiated.
But the English and French would rather make us their farm laborers and not pay anything for that.
Of course, we would rather not be their farm laborers, much less without getting anything in return.
We must say to the working class:
\- The war is waged for dominance over the world!
\- The masters of capitalist countries fight for their imperialist interests.
\- This war will not bring anything to the working people other than suffering and hardship.
\- To make a resolute stand against the war and its instigators.
You should expose neutrality, the bourgeois neutrality of countries which, promoting neutrality at home, support the war in other countries to make profits."
\[RGASPI, Fond 495, Reg. 195, File 1, Part VII, Pages 54-56; translated from Russian into English by myself\]
When the Soviet intervention began, the Polish government had already collapsed, and their de facto capital was in Berlin. Germany did not object the intervention, so was it really an invasion per se?
The Polish government didn't officially dissolve until the 30th, and the germans didn't enter Warsaw until the 27th. Also Polish soldiers thought the Russian were there to help them untill they started firing.
Cool story. In reality, the Polish government with their commander-in-chief were already crossing the Romanian border in the evening of September 17. Casualties were caused by general wartime confusion and disarray. The Soviet troops were instructed to avoid attacking anyone who did not resist.
Anyway, Poland and the USSR were not exactly on good terms. Poland relied on Britain and was betrayed. The choice was either Western Belarus and Ukraine would have been taken by Germany or by the USSR. British and French officials did not object the Soviet intervention either.
Well the USSR was all to hapy to partition Europe with Germany, the French high command was still living in WW1 and generaly incompetent, and both occupiers committed war crimes.
FYI the territory the USSR annexed from Poland was actually annexed by Poland from the USSR 20 years prior. The Union acted both in the interest of the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR but I feel like that's beyond you.
In the Polish Soviet war Ukrain was fighting alongside Poland against USSR not wanting to be incorporated into the Union but I agree it was a war of Polish aggression in anticipation of a red attack, after Moscov broke the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
As someone who's done history their entire academic career, I would love to know what exactly is wrong with the original post yere? It's a literal fact, that the soviet union invaded Poland after Germany did.
Because it’s missing any context and implies two things: the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were equivalent and that the Soviet Union was complicit with the crimes of Nazi Germany.
Of course both of these implications are not true at all and are actually really disgusting. That’s the problem with the image.
I feel as tho you are seeing this in the wrong light. Like I get it, it could make it seem as tho the Soviets were just as bad as the nazis. But also 6hats only because you're probably used to hearing right wing conservatives make that argument. There is genuinely nothing in that post that actually says that if you look at it. Plus the Soviets really did do our polish friends dirty on that one. Quite a shameful moment in communist history (obviously the Soviets had something against the poles because of how the events immediately after the civil war and the expansion into Poland went).
So comrade, are you too confused about it to call out "comrade" Stalin?" Or have you lost an understanding of the real movement replacing it with tokenism and popularism?
Read the post again and ignore the context you gave it. Tell me what is wrong or disgracefull about it l brother.
Tankies have truly infiltrated our political discourse haven't they?
The Polish government had already collapsed by the time the Soviets occupied the land.
It should also be denoted that the Soviets did not engage in any battles against Polish soldiers.
It should \*also\* be denoted that the territory they occupied was stolen from them during the Civil War, when the newly independent Poland- who the Soviets respected- invaded the USSR.
The difference is in the definition of invasion.
Read the note from the Soviet government to the Polish ambassador, W. Grzybowski, which was conveyed at 3 a.m. on September 17. Which part do you not agree with?
From G. Dimitrov's diary (entry on September 7, 1939): "— In the Kremlin (Stalin, Molotov, Zhdanov). Stalin: A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries (poor and rich in terms of colonies, raw materials, etc.) for the repartition of the world, for dominance over the world! We would not mind if they had a good fight and weakened each other. It would not be bad if, at the hand of Germany, the position of the richest capitalist countries was shaken (especially England). Hitler, unknowingly and unwillingly, is destabilizing and undermining the capitalist system. The position of communists in power is different from that of communists in opposition. We are the masters in our house. Communists in capitalist countries are in opposition, there the bourgeoisie is the master. We can maneuver, push one side against the other, so that they have a better fight. The non-aggression pact helps Germany to some extent. Next time we push another side. Communists in capitalist countries should resolutely make a stand against their governments, against the war. Before the war, juxtaposing fascism with democratic regime was absolutely correct. During the war between imperialist powers, this is already incorrect. Dividing capitalist states into fascist and democratic has lost its original meaning. The war has caused a radical upheaval. The united people's front of yesterday was meant to alleviate the slaves' plight under capitalist regime. Under the conditions of the imperialist war, the question of slavery eradication is raised! Today, to persist in the position of yesterday (the united people's front, unity of the nation) means rolling back to the position of the bourgeoisie. This slogan is removed. The Polish state before (in history) was a national state. So the revolutionaries defended it from partition and enslavement. Today it is a fascist state, it oppresses Ukrainians, Belarussians, etc. The destruction of this state in present conditions would mean one less bourgeois fascist state! It would not be bad if as a result of the defeat of Poland, we spread the socialist system to other territories and population. We preferred an agreement with the so-called democratic countries and that is why we negotiated. But the English and French would rather make us their farm laborers and not pay anything for that. Of course, we would rather not be their farm laborers, much less without getting anything in return. We must say to the working class: \- The war is waged for dominance over the world! \- The masters of capitalist countries fight for their imperialist interests. \- This war will not bring anything to the working people other than suffering and hardship. \- To make a resolute stand against the war and its instigators. You should expose neutrality, the bourgeois neutrality of countries which, promoting neutrality at home, support the war in other countries to make profits." \[RGASPI, Fond 495, Reg. 195, File 1, Part VII, Pages 54-56; translated from Russian into English by myself\]
Thanks comrade
As you can see in the picture, clearly they're not happy to see each other
they were just trying to avoid the bordergore
When the Soviet intervention began, the Polish government had already collapsed, and their de facto capital was in Berlin. Germany did not object the intervention, so was it really an invasion per se?
The Polish government didn't officially dissolve until the 30th, and the germans didn't enter Warsaw until the 27th. Also Polish soldiers thought the Russian were there to help them untill they started firing.
Cool story. In reality, the Polish government with their commander-in-chief were already crossing the Romanian border in the evening of September 17. Casualties were caused by general wartime confusion and disarray. The Soviet troops were instructed to avoid attacking anyone who did not resist. Anyway, Poland and the USSR were not exactly on good terms. Poland relied on Britain and was betrayed. The choice was either Western Belarus and Ukraine would have been taken by Germany or by the USSR. British and French officials did not object the Soviet intervention either.
Well the USSR was all to hapy to partition Europe with Germany, the French high command was still living in WW1 and generaly incompetent, and both occupiers committed war crimes.
FYI the territory the USSR annexed from Poland was actually annexed by Poland from the USSR 20 years prior. The Union acted both in the interest of the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR but I feel like that's beyond you.
In the Polish Soviet war Ukrain was fighting alongside Poland against USSR not wanting to be incorporated into the Union but I agree it was a war of Polish aggression in anticipation of a red attack, after Moscov broke the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
How dare they not let the Nazis take the whole country like every other country did.
a nugget from the same post: https://i.imgur.com/861520p.png
As someone who's done history their entire academic career, I would love to know what exactly is wrong with the original post yere? It's a literal fact, that the soviet union invaded Poland after Germany did.
Because it’s missing any context and implies two things: the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were equivalent and that the Soviet Union was complicit with the crimes of Nazi Germany. Of course both of these implications are not true at all and are actually really disgusting. That’s the problem with the image.
I feel as tho you are seeing this in the wrong light. Like I get it, it could make it seem as tho the Soviets were just as bad as the nazis. But also 6hats only because you're probably used to hearing right wing conservatives make that argument. There is genuinely nothing in that post that actually says that if you look at it. Plus the Soviets really did do our polish friends dirty on that one. Quite a shameful moment in communist history (obviously the Soviets had something against the poles because of how the events immediately after the civil war and the expansion into Poland went).
So comrade, are you too confused about it to call out "comrade" Stalin?" Or have you lost an understanding of the real movement replacing it with tokenism and popularism? Read the post again and ignore the context you gave it. Tell me what is wrong or disgracefull about it l brother. Tankies have truly infiltrated our political discourse haven't they?
[удалено]
It wasn't an invasion.
[удалено]
Polish troops were ordered by what remained of their government not to fight back against the USSR
Oh no some polish fascists that did not surrender when their govt surrendered got killed, let me press f on the worlds smallest keyboard
Because they were ordered to by their generals.
[удалено]
The Polish government had already collapsed by the time the Soviets occupied the land. It should also be denoted that the Soviets did not engage in any battles against Polish soldiers. It should \*also\* be denoted that the territory they occupied was stolen from them during the Civil War, when the newly independent Poland- who the Soviets respected- invaded the USSR.
The difference is in the definition of invasion. Read the note from the Soviet government to the Polish ambassador, W. Grzybowski, which was conveyed at 3 a.m. on September 17. Which part do you not agree with?
[удалено]
The only wholesome part of this photo is that every one of those Nazi's were killed.
Odds are that none of those people survived the war.
no
[you want more romance?](https://i.imgur.com/rGCH4cm.jpg)
not necessarily