Fair enough, I can’t read Hungarian.

Now, do you have any sources of rape statistics by Nazis in Belarus, or by Americans in west-germany? Or maybe those things weren’t studied and publicised because that would be against the objective of propagating anticommunist propaganda?

BTW, why is your focus on Russians? Don’t you know the Red Army had sizeable proportions of Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakh, and many of the ethnical minorities within Russia proper?

Hungary in 1941 was an Axis power. Whatever “information” coming from “a Hungarian doctor” would literally be like basing a study on what “Nazi doctors” had to say about Soviet troops in Germany, literally no reason to take it seriously, as i said it’s Nazi propaganda. Furthermore, this is a contemporary study paid for with EU money and carried out by a Hungarian government agency. Why do you take so seriously anti-Russian governments made propaganda? If you’re Hungarian and you’re against the Soviets, I have bad news: you’re standing with the Nazis.

So you just ignore my entire comment and try to find other “Soviet history compilation: best gotcha moments”? Answer to my previous comment in good faith and I’ll answer to you in the same way

Have you asked Karelians what they think of that? Or are you arguing purely from nationalist beliefs?

In 1918 Poland decided to unilaterally invade modern Ukraine and Belarus because of nationalist expansionist beliefs, you can read about it on the wikipedia article or the Polish-Ukrainian war.

In 1939 the Soviet Union recovered those territories and gave them back to the Belarusian and Ukrainian SSRs, which Poles are still crying about. If you care about seeing maps representing this I can give you sources no problem since I’m arguing from good faith.

After 1945, Poland was forced by the USSR to give reparations in order to compensate for the lack of mutual defense agreement against Nazis before 1939, which was a mistaken policy that led to a lot of insatisfaction in Poland. After the mid-1950s, the Soviet Union removed these reparations and instead started subsidising the Polish socialist nation with cheap resources and industrialising it.

What part of 1969 is relevant to you?

Give me a numeric source for the rape. Spoiler alert: you won’t find any serious study because it’s literally Nazi propaganda.

Can you link me to the syphylis thing?

I wrote that myself, buddy, you’ll probably be able to even find Spanish to English translation mistakes if you can look and correlate lmao. I specifically asked you to argue in good faith, I hope you can change your mind and actually do that

Wanna discuss Molotov Ribbentrop? Let’s discuss Molotov Ribbentrop

Ok, I’ll try to explain this in detail and in good faith. Please, I beg you do the effort of reading through my comment, I’ll explain the reasons why I believe Molotov-Ribbentrop wasn’t imperialism:

1) Most of the invaded “Polish” territories actually belong to modern Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. In 1919, Poland started the Polish-Ukrainian war and invaded Ukraine, Belarus and part of the RSFSR. This so-called “carving of Poland by the Soviet Union” liberated many formerly oppressed non-Polish national ethnicities such as Lithuanians in Polish-controlled Vilnius arguably being genocided, or ceding the city of Lviv to the Ukraine SSR. Here’s a map of the territories of modern Poland that were actually invaded by the Soviets, and which ones (the vast majority) actually belong to modern Ukraine and Belarus.

And here’s a map of the pre-Molotov-Ribbentrop Poland and the majority ethnicities per region:

Please look at those two maps, and notice how the “Polish” territories invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939 were actually Ukrainian/Belarusian/Lithuanian majority and were returned to their corresponding republics after they were invaded and forcefully taken by Polish nationalists in 1919.

2) The Soviet Union had been trying for the entire 1930s to establish a mutual-defense agreement with Poland, France and Britain against the Nazis, under the doctrine of the then-People’s Commisar of Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov. This decade-long proposal for mutual-defence went completely ignored by France and England, which hoped to see a Nazi-Soviet conflict that would destroy both countries, and Poland didn’t agree to negotiations by itself either. The Soviet government went as far as to offer to send one million troops together with artillery, tanking and aviation, to Poland and France. The response was ignoring these pleas and offerings.

Furthermore, this armistice between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany happened only one year after the Munich Betrayal. The Soviet Union and France had a Mutual Defense Agreement with Czechoslovakia, which France (together with the UK) unilaterally violated in agreement with the Nazis when ceding Czechoslovak territories to Nazi Germany. Stalin offered France, as an alternative to the Munich Betrayals, a coordinated and two-front attack to Nazi Germany, which France rejected in favour of the Munich Agreements.

3) The Soviet Union had been through WW1 up to 1917, the Russian Civil War up to 1922 (including a famine that killed millions) in which western powers like France, England or the USA invaded the Bolsheviks and helped the tsarist Whites to reestablish tsarism, which ultimately ended with a costly Bolshevik victory; the many deaths of famine during the land-collectivization of 1929-1933, and up to 1929 was a mostly feudal empire with little to no industry to speak of. Only after the 1929 and 1934 5-year plans did the USSR manage to slightly industrialize, but these 10 years of industrialization were barely anything in comparison with the 100 years of industrialization Nazi Germany enjoyed. The Soviet Union in 1939 was utterly underdeveloped to face Nazi Germany alone, as proven further by the 27 million casualties in the war that ended Nazism. The fact that the Soviet Union “carved Eastern Europe” in the so-called “secret protocol” was mostly in self-defense. The geography of the Great European Plain made it extremely difficult to have any meaningful defenses against Nazis with weaponry and technological superiority, again proven by the fact that the first meaningful victory against Nazis was not in open field but in the battle of Stalingrad, which consisted more of a siege of a city. The Soviet Union, out of self-preservation, wanted to simply add more Soviet-controlled distance between themselves and the Nazis. You don’t have to take my word for all of this, you can hear it from western diplomats and officials from the period itself. I hope nobody will find my choice of personalities to reflect a pro-Soviet bias:

“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)

"It seemed to me that the Soviet leaders believed conflict with Nazi Germany was inescapable. But, lacking clear assurances of military partnership from England and France, they resolved that a ‘breathing spell’ was urgently needed. In that sense, the pact with Germany was a temporary expedient to keep the wolf from the door” Joseph E. Davies (U.S. Ambassador to the USSR, 1937–1938) Mission to Moscow (1941)

I could go on with quotes but you get my point.

4) The Soviet Union invaded Poland 2 weeks after the Nazis, at a time when there was no functioning Polish government anymore. Given the total crushing of the Polish forces by the Nazis and the rejection of a mutual-defense agreement from England and France with the Soviets, there is only one alternative to Soviet occupation of Eastern Poland: Nazi occupation of Eastern Poland. Seriously, what was the alternative, letting Nazis genocide even further east, killing arguably millions more in the process over these two years between Molotov-Ribbentrop and Operation Barbarossa? France and England, which did have a mutual-defense agreement with Poland, initiated war against Germany as a consequence of the Nazi invasion, but famously did not start war against the Soviets, the main reason in my opinion being the completely different character of the Soviet invasion. Regardless of this, please tell me. After the rejection of mutual-defense agreements with the Soviet Union: what was the alternative other than Nazi occupation of Eastern Poland?

I beg you answer point by point on my response because I’ve taken the time to do the actual reading on this, and I’m yet to see anything that can really challenge any of the points I’m making. Maybe you do have knowledge I’m missing and which would help me understand the history of Molotov-Ribbentrop better.

Thanks for reading anyway.

The USSR that saved Eastern Europe from the almost complete genocide of Slav “untermenschen” according to Nazi genocidal plans such as Generalplan Ost, at the tremendous cost of 27 million deaths of Soviet citizens in the brave struggle against Nazis.

What on Earth are you talking about? My country, Spain, only received weapons and military aid against fascism from the USSR years before WW2 started, during the Spanish civil war. The Soviet Union was the most antifascist state in Europe, and I wish my country would have been next to the Soviets so that we wouldn’t have endured almost 40 years of fascist regime.

Against the ones who saved Europe from Nazism?

Huh? China isn’t genocidal, what are you talking about?

deleted by creator

You famously lost the war, and you’re still an independent nation. Finland obtained independence in 1917 because of the communists, namely the Bolshevik constitution, allowing for the first time in human history the right of self-determination and secession. If it hadn’t been for the communist you’d be a province of Russia.

If “the lesser evil” to you are nazis, you’re a nazi

Finland currently doesn’t recognise Palestine as a country, they’re currently, as it exists today, siding with the genocidal maniacs in the Israeli government.

It most definitely did not start in the cold war. The US was happily invading and controlling the politics of as much of the continent of the Americas well before WW2, with stuff such as the United Fruit Company or the Big Stick Ideology. The 1898 invasion of Cuba and establishment of a military junta comes to mind.

What exactly has China done militarily over the past 45 years that leads you to compare it to the US? China is predominantly a peaceful world power which hasn’t invaded any country over the past half a century.

I think any government/state/group with power wants to hold and expand it

Then you’d be wrong. Famously, after the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Russian Socialist Federation of Soviet Republics, under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, created the first constitution in history that granted the unilateral right of self-determination and secession to all peoples of the former Russian Empire. This is how Poland gained its independence in 1918, as well as Finland and many other countries formerly part of the Russian Empire. Interesting episode of history.

for decades

Centuries*.

China and Russia don’t have those restraints

I understand why you’d say that about modern Russia, but how on Earth are you comparing China to the USA? In what war has China been in the past 40 years? What countries has it been exploiting?