Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I’d like to think it’s simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.

  • rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    4711·
    2 days ago

    Simply put, they have no idea what they’re talking about.

    Stalin took credit for defeating Nazis (after carving up Poland with them first, but who cares about minor historical details) and was leading this big global superpower that could stand up the The Evil West (while also crushing every other leftist organization that didn’t bend the knee, but again, minor details).

    And from there it’s a pretty simple leap to the world being divided into the Good Camp and the Bad Camp. The US is clearly in the Bad Camp (which is the part I don’t argue). The USSR was against the US. Therefore it must be the Good Camp. The idea of multiple evil people opposing each other is a bit too complicated for them.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      66·
      14 hours ago

      Pop quiz though, how many times did the USSR offer to ally against the Nazis with Poland and who torpedoed that?

      Minor historical detail really.

          • rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafeEnglish
            34·
            10 hours ago

            So… still USSR, represented by Molotov eventually deciding to side with Nazis. Really unsure how it’s Poland’s fault, as you implied previously

            • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              92·
              10 hours ago

              That is such a ridiculous take even British historians disagree with you.

              Are you interested in understanding history and trying to learn from it?

              There were many talks, the British and French governments refused to commit, prefering to let the Nazis kill Slavs. They told the Polish government that despite Hitler loudly saying how he was going to kill Slavs and take their land this would not happen. The USSR said they would fight, first in Czechoslovakia when it was annexed, second when the Nazis were building up forces on Poland’s boarders. Both times they needed permission to send armies through (and later in obvs) Poland.

              The polish government, being capitalist shitbags, were terrified of a revolution and denied this. Preferring to take their chances with Hitler and the dubious guarantees of the British. This worked out famously well for them.

              The ussr, having been a nation of serfs 20 years ago, and being unable to fight alone abandoned the talks that were being deliberately sabotaged for a NAP to buy time. Literally the same strategy as the UK yet somehow this is an example of the USSR being evil? Despite this being their backup backup plan.

              Framing it as the evil USSR carving up Poland with Hitler is not just subtly wrong, it’s almost the opposite of reality.

                • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                  41·
                  3 hours ago

                  It is okay to be categorically wrong about a historical time period. It wasn’t Molotov in that phase. Molotov replaced Litvinov, who was the foreign minister of the USSR until 1939. Litvinov was the proponent of allying with the West against Germany. (For what it is worth Litvinov likely would’ve signed the Pact with Germany anyway.) But Stalin supported him, and even after being dismissed wasn’t even disgraced.

                  The important subsequent development here is that Britain and France then actively tried to support Finland against the USSR during the Winter War while still technically at war with Germany, who was also supporting Finland. The Phoney War was a real thing that played out, after all.

                  Unless these are too minor of details.

    • Digit@lemmy.wtfEnglish
      113·
      2 days ago

      Simply put, they have no idea what they’re talking about.

      Stalin took credit for defeating Nazis (after carving up Poland with them first, but who cares about minor historical details)

      As I read that, it occurs, perhaps because they simply are not cognizant of, and do not cognise, any other way (e.g. any “freedom respecting” way), only their one true way. Why won’t we just obey? And they keep their totalitarianising level of authoritarianism preventing them from entertaining the ideas, instead only seeing other ideas as threats, and only study them as far as they need to construct the next argument to protect the one true way, that they’ve identified with, and so defend as if their lives (and more) depend on it, obliterating critical, considerate, creative cognition, leaving only social dominance reflex mode…

      … could be something like that.