Apparently I’m now a shitlib for not buying into this disgusting tankie propaganda that it was all the Wests fault and Stalin had to ally with Hitler.
For a mod who loves to ban others for bad jacketing, they sure have no problem doing it to other anarchists.
The Ban:
The Context:
Seems like a bad call to me too, PTB. I’ll reverse the ban.
Sorry but this is PTB. Criticizing Stalin and the USSR doesn’t make one a liberal. Wtf.
Repeating the same tired attacks on Soviet history is definitely one of the first go tos in the liberal debate playbook on anti communism.
It does seems like tankie did the same with everything regarding US and the current russia invasion, so yeah, i can understand that.
Such as
Such as your favorite admin while saying “russia invade ukraine” and accompanying it with what NATO did, shifting the blame of the current conflict to US.
Just for context, won’t really engage further with this: I take 0 issue with people criticizing Stalin, the USSR etc. I’m not a Stalinist, ML nor MLM.
It was only for that specific insulting comment and claiming the USSR outright allied with fascist Germany. Literally every day that kept Germany from fully carrying out Generalplan Ost and Operation Barbarossa in general saved countless lives and allowed for proper industrialisation, later allowing a war effort at all.
I do not have any interest in engaging with people using that tone and straying from proper discussion (again, 0 problems with people trying to discuss things even if erroneous) and do not want them part of the com, it’s as shrimple as that.
I took no issue with OP of that specific thread.
You banned me for being a shitlib, not for being ‘insulting’.
Because it read like a shitlib take ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: and shitlibs usually are insulting too
Is “shitlib” not insulting?
Just want you to know how fucking weird you look outside of whatever bubble thinks this behavior is normal. It’s actually funny how far a powerless person will take their small taste of power and just show every piece of their ass.
I love it, you are a motley fool with admin tools.
not a tankie
cites cowbee
Pick one.
Just remember, whenever you read, “social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism,” you are reading part of the justification for why the USSR should sign a treaty with Nazi Germany. The actual justifications for this are complicated, I think it is actually not completely straightforward such as “Nazis bad, treaty with Nazis make USSR fascist.” However that is exactly the sort of campist and obscurative reasoning that Stalin tries to make. The argument was not “the USSR is still critically underdeveloped next to the most industrially advanced country in Europe, and we need some time to industrialize before we can oppose European fascism.” It was, “The social democrats in Europe are worse than Nazis, so the Nazis need time to crush their moderate wing.”
You can kind of understand the Real Politic of Stalin. It’s the same justification for the endless purges of his political enemies. I think that the historical basis for authoritarianism extends beyond the “great man.” But the guy was probably the greatest historical revisionist of the last 150 years. Both his enemy Leon Trotsky and Trotsky’s one-time secretary Reya Dunayevskaya meticulously documented how Stalin had history literally rewritten to make him seem like a more revolutionary figure than he was.
I recognize that Trotsky doesn’t have a good rapport with anarchists, nor should he, after 1921. But If any leftist tradition “weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living,” it is the legacy Stalinism.
PTB, Defending stalin for siding with nazis is crazy
Defending Stalin, period. Is crazy. He arguably killed more people than Hitler…
true, idk why ur getting downvoted
There is infinetly more nuance
no there isn’t. they worked with the nazis. it doesn’t matter why they did it, they still did it. if the choice is working with the nazis or death, then the only choice is death. go out fighting and give them hell.
PTB.
Fact but IBM is still around tho…
German elite is made up in large part of Nazi nepo babies
There is no justice in the world.
Calling this one a PTB, it’s not a shitlib thing to not ask the USSR to have not temporarily partnered with Nazi Germany.
PTB and on the basis of blatant misinfo as well. Disappointing
what does ptb mean?
The sidebar lists the most common acronyms of this community.
thank you, i will check out the sidebar
Linking to anything Cowbee said as “fact” is insane.
The only taint on USSR reputation is oppression of LGBTQ according to cowbee.
Haha that name rang a bell that was one of the first people I ever blocked on Lemmy :)
What’s wrong about having a wartime ally and then declaring war on them?
I do that all the time in Total War. It’s not a big problem if you have the armies to back up your chaotic strategies and if they complain, just wipe them out.
Before 1941 everyone collaborated, appeased, or worked with the Nazis in some form. And then 1941 happened and the Holocaust.
Rather than this being a lesson for future generations of why Nazis cannot be collaborated, appeased, or worked with: it seems as though this is some ace up the sleeve for catching modern debatelords for apparently being inconsistent.
Generally I think if you’re using terms like ‘shitlib’ you’re losing ground, and of there’s someone saying ‘tankie’ there is unlikely any common ground to be found. Accurate or no, the first one to use either term is usually in the wrong, imo.
Before 1941? I assume you mean before 1939?
I don’t think there’s any equivalence in saying “if you invade Poland we are going to declare war on you” and then doing so (as France and Britain did) and literally teaming up with Hitler to invade Poland (as the Soviet Union did).
Appeasement was a weak strategy but the idea was less that war needed to be avoided at all costs and more that war with Hitler was inevitable but western Europe needed to buy a few months to try to catch up in rearmament. They were just a few months away from fighting the battle of Britain with biplanes.
1941 was when Germany invaded the USSR (and Japan attacked the USA), which I was marking as the last point in which any major/global power remained diplomatic, even neutral, with the Nazis.
Wild timeline take dude.
PTB!
PTB. Would be nice to have the ability to vote ban them.
There was way more nuance to the situation. The moderator linked a summary of the false equivalence, as well as the extra context.
you showed up to be like: “fucked up, tankie defending Nazi alliance” as if history began and ended in 1939.
YDI, I can see how you ended up a ‘world news’ moderator though
On the topic of Cowbee’s summary, one of the articles linked there is by this person. The article concerns the question of whether Poland was invaded by the soviets in 1939 link. I was curious about the author’s argument, so I read it.
As it turns out, the crux of the author’s argument was that the Polish government exiled itself to Romania on September 17th, and so the soviets could occupy eastern Poland because Poland technically had no government at the time. After all, it couldn’t do anything from Romania, as it was a neutral country. EXCEPT the Polish government went to Romania AFTER the soviets invaded, and it was IN REACTION to the soviet invasion. So, because the author got the chronological order of events wrong, his argument kinda falls apart.
I don’t want to suggest that the author doesn’t know history, but I strongly suspect that he argues in bad faith by intentionally manipulating facts and omitting important information. I don’t think you should treat this author as an authority on the topic, especially since this isn’t his only outstanding claim that has been questioned by people versed in the field of Eastern European history. Among other things, he’s also a Holodomor denier.
100% guarantee that pointing this out somehow turns into “well actually your history book is wrong because it was written in English.” It’s a comedy of fallacies with them…
I’ve argued plenty against the tankie nonsense. They blatantly ignore every historical fact that disagrees with their narrative. Like, Leftist parties were quite literally torn apart over the perceived Soviet-Nazi alliance. But in their eyes, it was always clear that Stalin, total genius btw, was just masterfully playing Hitler and his stupid Nazis and was just buying time, which btw he had to do because the Allies were so evil they wouldn’t recognize that Hitler was a bigger threat to humanity than Stalin, which they obviously should have realised through the time machine in FDRs basement or something.
Recently that Yogthos fella did a similar thing, claiming the Baltic states voted in the referendum in favour of staying in the Soviet Union… in a referendum that didn’t ask that question, and wasn’t even held in the Baltic states. Funnily enough they never replied to that as they probably realised there was no arguing against that. Instead, they just downvote brigaded my comment.
That summary is terrible, though. It claims shit like the soviets “hated” germany / the nazis, ignoring shit like the Treaty of Rapallo wherein the violent suppression of communists by the German government (not yet the nazis, yes) was freely forgiven by the soviet union, and which played a huge role in the interaction between the Soviet government and the Weimar / Nazi governments. It also relies heavily on the writings of Grover Furr, a flag even redder than the Soviet’s in any political discussion about the time period.
Grover Furr’s credibility is best explained by this blurb from his wikipedia page:
Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history, especially the Stalin era, in which he has stated that the Holodomor, the 1932–33 famine in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, was not deliberate, describing it as a fiction created by pro-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists, that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Nazi Schutzstaffel and not the Soviet NKVD, that all defendants in the Moscow Trials were guilty as charged, that claims in Nikita Khrushchev’s speech On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences are almost entirely false, that the purpose of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was to preserve the Second Polish Republic rather than partition it, and that the Soviet Union did not invade Poland in September 1939, on the grounds that the Polish state no longer existed.
Seriously, just go read Furr’s site (it’s incredibly difficult to parse due to how it’s presented. He loves having multiple interlinked web pages with little context provided as to how the specifics relate, so fair warning that it’s a slog.) The most blatant thing to point out is how he provides baseless in-text explanations of things like the meanings of specific language used in the M-R Pact which are completely unaddressed elsewhere in his explanation. It’s maddening to see him treated as a scholar in this field, as though statements provided in inline parenthetical / editorial asides are somehow exempt from the need for citations
or that anything he does is acceptable academic behavior.Back to Cowbee though: they completely misrepresent the “4/5 of dead Nazis” statistic, ignoring things like:
- Troop allocations between the western and eastern fronts were wildly disproportionate
- The seven other countries that contributed troops to the war on the eastern front (and then assign credit for all those nazi deaths to the USSR, of course)
- That, thanks to the willingness of Nazis to surrender to the western forces, the western front captured more than 10x the number of Nazi soldiers they killed (~3,500,000 captured to 375,000 killed) which is a million more than the soviets killed (this does not include the additional 3.5million ‘disarmed forces’ since those are only somewhat admissible here and is a hugely complex topic on it’s own)
There is a very real discussion to be had on how related, truly, were the two countries prior to the war, for example: They were close enough that the USSR even allowed the Nazis to run a tank training school, fighter pilot school and chemical weapons proving ground in their territory, which was closed soon after the reichstag fire as the political differences between the two countries became more solidifed as hitler rose to power). How much of that earlier cooperation survived? Important to discuss, and misrepresented by all sides in nearly all directions for an endless procession of political reasons. That solidification of differences is a truly fascinating topic and one fraught with complexity and intrigue and is a great subject to debate (in good faith), but the debate Cowbee is presenting is full of misinformation and absolute rampant bullshit from a king of misrepresenting history.
edit: misformatted link
edit 2: words are hard
About the tank school (not reading all this RN): It was for the Reichswehr, which was the army of the Weimar republic.
Also please read your own links, the 2nd paragraph of the wiki page reads:Following the Nazi party’s rise to power, the school was closed and Germany’s Tank Force and Air Force were trained in Germany.
So you didn’t even bother to read the 2nd half of that sentence, where I explicitly state exactly what you’re calling me out for having excluded? Come on.
I even read the whole article and thus thought it regarded the school as a whole
Closure
In the early 1930s, the political situation for the tank school began to change. The Soviet Union opened itself to the West while Germany attempted a closer approach to France.[1]
In December 1932, Germany achieved being viewed as an equal at the Geneva Conference, making the secret schools somewhat unnecessary. With the rise of the Nazis to power in January 1933, the ideological gap between fascist Germany and the communist Soviet Union became too large and the tank school at Kazan was closed in late 1933
I’m honestly not sure what you mean. How does the article regarding the school as a whole factor into anything being discussed, or at all address how you were trying to present my arguments as lacking credibility because of an oversight in my citations based on a point I addressed in the same sentence?
The main reason for my original comment was the following:
They were close enough that the USSR even allowed the Nazis to run a tank training school […]
Which again (intentionally or not) misrepresents historical fact. Weimar Germany was not at all the Third Reich…
This is a tedious and at-best-arguable semantic error on my part, since not only was it clearly in service of the future Nazi war machine (ex: Josef Harpe was a Nazi, and was one of the members of the school) and filled with then and future members of the Nazi party, the Nazis did run the school (and their rise to power lead to it’s dissolution, the complexities of which were my entire point).
tankie punks fuck off
I’m actually an anarchist, but you’re gonna use whatever pejorative makes you comfortable
You just like to say you are. You’re anti-ukraine and from russia. You put up more tankie posts and anti-dem posts than anything critical of the repubs.
You’re a tankie.
The reason I am often pissed at the democrats is due to how bad they are at actually opposing the republicans.
You’re just a ‘team blue’ maga type
You’re just a ‘team blue’ maga type
What does that even mean? It’s sure not an explanation for how the public record of your actions (and oft expressed opinons) appears to wildly differ from the values you’re claiming to hold…
What does ‘team blue’ maga mean?
The guy I was responding to has in this very thread said:
In response to criticism of ‘the west’: ‘you don’t like it? leave’
Please move to russia or NK. You tankies enjoying western civ while shouting down at how evil we are, is rich.
That’s like something I would unironically hear from a republican
Upholding ‘western civilization’ because capitalism somehow lifts people out of poverty, again this could easily come from a maga republican, this person just happens to be on team blue.
Western civ like it or not has pulled more people out of poverty than any other civ in human history
For me ‘blue maga’ are the people who are western chauvinists but act like they’re above it all because they voted for ‘the good guys’ running the soul harvester.
It’s sure not an explanation for how the public record of your actions (and oft expressed opinons) appears to wildly differ from the values you’re claiming to hold…
Is being an anarchist somehow contingent on passing a geopolitical opinion litmus test? I organize with anarchists, I shit on the russian government all the fucking time for being a capitalist shithole. I shit on the US government all the fucking time for being a capitalist shithole. I happen to have ended up living in the US due to the various political upheavals in mine (and my parents) lifetimes. As a result I tend to criticize the US more directly as I am not a fan of my taxes getting turned into dead children abroad.
Lol you clearly don’t know me, scan through my posts and see if you think I’m blue maga or whatever the fuck. I fall more on the social libertarian side than anything else. I’m very critical of the dems, but I’m not also a fucking idiot who thinks that the fascist shit pile we currently have is somehow the same as the dems by any means. The dems haven’t gone full fascist… it’s pretty clear they’d also not be destroying the US or harming it’s allies…and would be supporting Ukraine. Something you clearly are against…so to me you’re a tankie who sides with maga and fascist.
“Blue MAGA” is literally the singular best example of tankies parroting fascist rhetoric and is open evidence of their not so quiet collaboration. What a perfect parallel to the original topic of this thread!
“I’m not racist because Islam isn’t a race”
Yeah you’re pretty much what I would categorize as blue maga, chauvinist, racist, but team red ‘disgusts’ you. Clearly team blue would be managing the empire better so that it could stay ‘great’
You seem to have an issue with anarchists too:
“I’m not racist because Islam isn’t a race”
Not to shine too bright a light on this, but you kinda have a habit of finding a single sentence that out-of-context supports your position and then jumping the gun by citing it. Did you read the immediately previous sentence, where they provide that quote as a clarification of their pro-palestine position and then go on to repeatedly defend Palestinian lives and decry the actions of Israel despite their (Palestinian) religion’s general stance on the LGBTQ+ or other political and social issues? Here:
You don’t label a civilian death as a hate crime just because they’re a certain race or gender. So no you’re statement is blatantly false.
Honestly I don’t know how well I’d get along with SupraMario (they were pretty islamaphobic a year ago and don’t seem to know what anarchists actually espouse) - but this is beside that issue: it’s aggravating as heck to see these comments. You’re clearly intelligent, but you’re just too eager to respond and it keeps making you look foolish. If you’d just slow down a little and get the context in which things are said, you’d be a much more persuasive advocate for your beliefs.
Yea that makes me racists because I’m not a hamas supporter while also not supporting Israel? Lol try harder.
Islam is a violent religion that doesn’t support LGBTQ+ rights or womens rights…those are facts.
I see the entirety of your political knowledge is America
the person I’m replying to said that I was a tankie for being insufficiently critical of Republicans, go talk to them if you have an issue with people being US-centric
You’re just a ‘team blue’ maga type
If I search for “maga house”, “maga car”, “maga outfit”, I’m going to get some very specific images as a result.
Please show me an example of this “blue maga” in image form.
ok tankie
Please move to russia or NK. You tankies enjoying western civ while shouting down at how evil we are, is rich.
The USSR killed millions even after the war, it was a shit place with dictators leading it. They were no better than the nazis. Stop rewriting history.
Just because we dunk on tankies here doesn’t mean we approve of white… oops, sorry, I meant to say “western” - civilisation.
Okay?
Someone tell Japan they’re white now.
Hey, don’t slam it… Jewish people became “white enough” for the west as soon as they started slaughtering brown people - which proves that anyone with enough genocidal intent can reach those lofty heights!
Western civ like it or not has pulled more people out of poverty than any other civ in human history. It’s hella flawed and it requires guidance to grow and get better but that’s the whole damn point of a civilization.
You, anarchist, seem to think societies are going to magically swap over to hippie communities and everyone will share everything and be happy to not work ever again. It’s like you assume a home can be built without a foundation. I honestly don’t understand how it’s popular to people over the age of 18.
Western civ like it or not
Yeah, all the shantytowns around these parts with sewage floating through the streets attests to that wonderful statement of yours.
get better but that’s the whole damn point of a civilization.
Your precious white… oops, sorry, meant to say “western” again… civilisation has had hundreds of years to stop being a laboratory for horror and deprivation - at this point, it’s perfectly clear that all this is the point.
It’s like you assume a home can be built without a foundation
Not like you, huh? With your fancy foundation built on millions of corpses?
I honestly don’t understand how it’s popular to people over the age of 18.
Because not everybody over the age of 18 automatically degenerates into a spineless bootlicker - must be news to you, huh?
Every society has its horrors. People suck and people who don’t usually aren’t gravitated towards power.
Please explain how anarchist would magically make those who want to lead for power less likely to do so?
Every society has its horrors.
Not a valid defence - neither does it distract from your ludicrously false statements.
Please explain
What makes you think anyone here owes a colonialism apologist any kind of explanation?
Lol yea that’s the excuse. No one owes our little bullshit plan for society an explanation. Move somewhere else please, just leave Western society since it’s sooooo bad.