(Source.)
Time for another history lesson:
It was no doubt disgraceful that Soviet Russia should make any agreement with the leading Fascist state; but this reproach came ill from the statesmen who went to Munich. […] [The German–Soviet] pact contained none of the fulsome expressions of friendship which Chamberlain had put into the Anglo‐German declaration on the day after the Munich conference.
Indeed Stalin rejected any such expressions: “the Soviet Government could not suddenly present to the public German–Soviet assurances of friendship after they had been covered with buckets of filth by the [Fascist] Government for six years.” The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland. Munich had been a true alliance for partition: the British and French dictated partition to the Czechs.
The Soviet government undertook no such action against the Poles. They merely promised to remain neutral, which is what the Poles had always asked them to do and which Western policy implied also. More than this, the agreement was in the last resort anti‐German: it limited the German advance eastwards in case of war, as Winston Churchill emphasized. […] [With the pact, the Soviets hoped to ward] off what they had most dreaded—a united capitalist attack on Soviet Russia. […] It is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed.
— A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War, pg. 262
When [the Fascists] attacked Poland, the Soviets moved into Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, the Baltic territories that had been taken from them by Germany, Britain, and Poland in 1919. They overthrew the [anticommunist] dictatorships that the Western counterrevolutionaries had installed in the Baltic states and incorporated them as three republics into the USSR. The Soviets also took back Western Byelorussia, the Western Ukraine, and other areas seized from them and incorporated into the Polish [anticommunist] dictatorship in 1921 under the Treaty of Riga.
This has been portrayed as proof that they colluded with the [Fascists] to gobble up Poland, but the Soviets reoccupied only the area that had been taken from them twenty years before. History offers few if any examples of a nation refusing the opportunity to regain territory that had been seized from it. In any case, as Taylor notes, by reclaiming their old boundaries, the Soviets drew a line on the [Fascist] advance which was more than what Great Britain and France seemed willing to do.
— Michael Parenti, The Sword and the Dollar, pgs. 144–145
The discussion in London took place on 24 April. Halifax also backed unilateral declarations. ‘A tri-partite pact on the lines proposed, would make war inevitable. On the other hand, he thought that it was only fair to assume that if we rejected Russia’s proposals, Russia would sulk.’ And then Halifax made this comment, almost as an afterthought: ‘There was… always the bare possibility that a refusal of Russia’s offer might even throw her into Germany’s arms.’⁸⁰ Was anyone listening? If you asked the British and French everyman’s opinion, war was already inevitable.
[…]
The failures of the previous five years to obtain agreements on collective security led Molotov to want to pin the French and British to the wall to make sure they would not leave the Soviet Union in the lurch against the Wehrmacht. This was not Soviet paranoia, it was Soviet experience. Would not any prudent diplomat in the same position, after years of being spurned, mistrust interlocutors like Chamberlain and Bonnet? Maiskii’s reports appear to have encouraged the Soviet government to invest in continued negotiations. The obduracy in Moscow derived from doubts about British and French intentions which Maiskii and Surits could not overcome, and that for good reason.
I am admittedly less familiar with the claim that Moscow deported German communists, but I really doubt that the KPD’s presumed independence from the Kremlin was a reason for turning away German communist refugees (a strange claim to make given that anti-Bolsheviks usually bash the KPD for being too dependent on Moscow). More likely, I suspect that these people were the unfortunate victims of ‘spymania’, which other countries were also suffering at the time; it was not exactly abnormal.
Anyway, I am seriously contemplating creating a troll account on another instance. It’s fun to confuse and play games with anticommies: most of them have neither the reading comprehension nor the attention span to understand what’s going on (see their thread’s Fox Newsian title), so tricking them into honouring fascists or bashing antifascist research should be really easy.
I don’t even think it’s historical illiteracy at this point, it’s just deliberate lies. They choose to silence opposing viewpoints and ignore all evidence to the contrary and because they know that it debunks their bullshit:

Funny how they call us an echo chamber, while living inside of their own echo chamber that’s more oppressive than ours.
JFC! So a non-aggression pact means that you like and are allies with the Nazis then what about all the non-aggression pacts that France and Britain signed with the Nazis? And they included territorial annexation! Most of the France and Britain NAPs were for the territorial annexation. “If we take the Sudetenland, you are cool with that and wont use that as a Casus Belli? The Anschluss of Austria?..”
It is amazing all of the simplistic revisionism of WW2. Related to how selectively Appeasement is remembered (that is about how France and Britain were signing NAPs with Nazis and avoiding conflict with the Nazis). It is just that Chamberlain was a pussy and a peacenik. And the lesson from appeasement is that when we want to go to war we call the enemy leader the New Hitler (Saddam, Maduro, Putin, etc.) and now you are the evil person that loves the Holocaust if you are against war and invasion.
Bringing up the other pacts will get you permabanned and your comments removed. I’ve seen exactly this happen about three weeks ago.
Yeah, it’s deliberately omitted that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a non-aggression pact first and foremost. Didn’t the Soviet Union try “Collective Security” pacts with the French and British, first, AFAIK? Liberals simplify everything to their idealistic point of view.
Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html
France and Britain blockaded arms to the Spanish republicans(faction that included socialists, anarchists and communists) while the USSR supplied them, Nazi Germany supported the fascist nationalist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_faction_(Spanish_Civil_War)#Soviet_Union
The western allies had many of their own non-aggression pacts with the Nazis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-Power_Pact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
https://www.oldmagazinearticles.com/Franco-German-Non-Aggression-Treaty
Presumably these people would have been happier if the Nazis took all of Poland, I’m sure that would have been great for the Jews etc in the east
Every time I remember my cringe past as an anti-communist radlib I’m always surprised by how distinctly less unhinged I was compared to many others.
Even back then I would never have claimed the Soviets and Nazis were allies. Even in the context of my reactionary views I understood that they were mortal enemies and that Horseshoe Theory was bullshit - and I read fucking Bloodlands ffs.
These people have no excuse. They’re historically illiterate.
I think some of the MoG power posters know that it’s bullshit and are doing it anyway. Maybe they’ve convinced themselves that they’re counter-balancing “tankie lies.”
Posting about MoG is cheating tho. It’s nothing but scratched liberals because any other point of view gets removed and permabanned. Your troll account would last ten seconds.
And yet they still cry about “authoritarianism”.
This one is always ridiculous to me because it also implies that the entire Soviet leadership couldn’t like… read what the Nazis were writing and saying about the Soviet Union?
Hitler: We must destroy the Judeo Bolshevik menace. We are mortal enemies and they must be subjugated before they can destroy us.
Stalin:

It makes sense under the framework that both the USSR and Germany were onthologically evil and thus mustve loved each other.
As the saying goes, everything makes sense if you’re a moron.
When israel makes a ceasefire agreement with Hamas it means they’re allies too!
I do not think even my Texas world history classes said shit like this… That’s beyond bad, lol.
Horseshoe theory somehow getting dumber
I’m legit kinda scared to go on MoG, because I’m worried that I will suffer a mental shutdown from all of the cancer there.
Socialism with western characteristics.









