The Nazis worked hand in hand with liberals, and after the war liberals helped protect them and use them for the US space program and to lead organizations like NATO.
Oh, wow. So, you don’t distinguish between the collaborators and those who opposed fascism? That’s a very interesting blindspot you have. Convenient, too.
Does that also work for the Soviet Union? They collaborated with the Nazis too, remember?
The liberals only opposed fascism once it was clear that the Nazis were going to attack them as well. Fascists like Batista in Cuba were worked with to the very end, never once opposing them. As for the soviets, they never did collaborate with the Nazis.
What happened was the soviets spent an entire decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, while the liberals were gleefully working with the Nazis. The soviets signed a non-aggression pact on the eve of war to buy time.
Lol! Wut? The Soviets didn’t form an “anti-Nazi alliance”…they were allied with the Nazis. They made a deal with them to carve up Eastern Europe between their two empires. This was literally the same cynical opportunism that led the Americans to give sanctuary to Nazi scientists after the war. If this means that Liberals are somehow naturally aligned with fascism, in your mind…then so are Communists, by the same criteria. It simply isn’t true, either way.
You are being very selective with your outrage here, to the point of being completely disingenuous. A lot of people collaborated with the Nazis for a wide range of reasons. You claiming that paints everyone of that political type with the same brush, is just intellectually dishonest.
If you were arguing in good faith, you would have to acknowledge that fascists will use anyone of any political persuasion for their own advantage, right up until they are no longer useful…and then stab them in the back. Often literally killing them, en masse. Which is exactly what they did with all their political opponents, in the end.
That goes for Socialists, Liberals, Anarchists, whatever. Everyone NOT a fascist or a collaborator. There are distinctions between these groups, for a reason. You seem to be ignoring those distinctions, out of purely personal political bias.
Thanks for proving you’re as illiterate about history as you are about politics. Now there’s almost no chance any serious adults accidentally think you have anything intelligent to say.
The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
I am being honest here, that’s why I can recognize that since fascism and liberalism are both built on capitalism, they are diametrically opposed to socialism and have more in common with each other than they do with socialism.
Lol! Wut? The Soviets didn’t form an “anti-Nazi alliance”…they were allied with the Nazis. They made a deal with them to carve up Eastern Europe between their two empires. This was literally the same cynical opportunism that led the Americans to give sanctuary to Nazi scientists after the war. If this means that Liberals are somehow naturally aligned with fascism, in your mind…then so are Communists, by the same criteria. It simply isn’t true, either way.
It’s amazing that every comment you post is so embarrassingly wrong.
The USSR spent years trying to build an anti-Nazi alliance. 1933 they proposed collective security at the League of Nations. 1935 they signed mutual defense pacts with France and Czechoslovakia. Spring 1939 they sat in Moscow for months begging Britain and France for a real triple alliance. The West stalled. Refused to guarantee the Baltics. Refused to let the Red Army cross Poland to actually fight Hitler. Poland’s elite, more scared of workers than of Nazis, said no too and instead joined Hitler in attacking Czechoslovakia. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened because liberals handed Hitler Eastern Europe rather than work with socialists.
When Soviet troops entered eastern Poland September 17 1939, the Polish state had already collapsed. Government fled to Romania September 15. Warsaw was burning. The army was broken. The lands the USSR moved into? Not Poland proper. Territories Poland had seized and occupied by force in 1919-1921 from Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.
And spare me the nonsense about liberals and fascists. They share a foundation: defense of capitalist property. When capital feels threatened, liberalism drops the mask. Chile 1973. Indonesia 1965. Greece 1967. The Soviet Union abolished the capitalist class. That is a total category difference.
Then there is denazification. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. In the Soviet zone, former Nazis went to labor camps. They worked. They earned minimum wage like other inmates. In the West? Operation Paperclip handed over 1,600+ Nazi scientists, officers, and spies. Wernher von Braun, who used slave labor to build V-2 rockets, became head of NASA’s Apollo program. Adolf Heusinger, Hitler’s Chief of the General Staff, became Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. Johannes Steinhoff, Nazi ace, also chaired NATO’s military committee. Heinz Reinefarth, who massacred civilians in Warsaw, became a respected mayor in West Germany.
I genuinely cannot fathom how someone can be this historically, politically, and materially illiterate and still type with such confidence.
Lol! That’s hilarious. You are proving the point I was making to the other guy, in my last comment. You are selectively omitting all the ways that the Soviet Union did exactly the same thing as the US, after the war.
The Soviets had Operation Osoaviakhim, which used over 6000 Nazi operatives brought in from all over Nazi occupied territories, for their own missile programs, etc. Both Russia and the US were literally conducting almost identical programs across the spectrum, all the way through the entire cold war. It was
The fact that you’re just listing one side’s sketchy profile while completely ignoring the other, is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
Did you actually read what I wrote or just skim for a keyword?
Yes, the USSR ran Operation Osoaviakhim. They relocated German specialists. And then those specialists were forced to worked in research institutes under massive scrutiny and supervision for minimum wage where they would be executed if they refused to work. Not one of them was made head of the Soviet rocket program. Not one was given a seat on the Central Committee. Not one was appointed to command Warsaw Pact forces.
The Soviet system used their technical labor under massive constraint and threat. The Western system restored their class power. Wernher von Braun didn’t just “work” for NASA. He was a leader. Adolf Heusinger didn’t just “consult” for NATO. He chaired its Military Committee. These weren’t technicians in a lab. They were architects of policy, strategy, and rearmament.
You call that “identical.” That’s not analysis. That’s surrendering to bourgeois propaganda. One system subordinated former fascists to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The other subordinated the postwar order to former fascists. If you can’t grasp that distinction, no amount of facts will help you. But please, keep typing. It’s instructive. I personally couldn’t imagine being so arrogant and idiotic as to embarrass myself to the level you have throughout this thread. You really are showing how you have somewhere between 0 and a negative understanding of history and honestly reality and might possibly be illiterate.
See? Again, this is all framed in an incredibly selective way. This is basically just propaganda speak, for “my side can’t do bad things, only your side can”…and I’m not even defending the US. You’re having a one-sided argument with someone who isn’t arguing with any of the points you’re making…only the fact that you’re leaving out all the parts you don’t like, while white-washi g the parts you do. That’s disingenuous.
If historical record sounds like the soviets were overwhelmingly better than the west, then that’s just your evaluation of the actual historical record. That’s what happened, it isn’t because soviets good and US bad, it’s from fundamental differences in how fascism is treated by communists vs. by liberals.
This is basically just propaganda speak, for “my side can’t do bad things, only your side can”
No it’s the historical record of what actually happened. The fact you don’t like it and wish all countries and systems were equally bad when it comes to fascism doesn’t change that. The USSR for it’s many faults was absolutely antifascist pre, during and post war.
You are exhausting. So arrogant and so utterly wrong. You should be embarrassed I’m surprised the embarrassment hasn’t won out and stopped you from spouting nonsense at least for a bit but I suppose you’re still in the denial phase.
The Nazis worked hand in hand with liberals, and after the war liberals helped protect them and use them for the US space program and to lead organizations like NATO.
Oh, wow. So, you don’t distinguish between the collaborators and those who opposed fascism? That’s a very interesting blindspot you have. Convenient, too.
Does that also work for the Soviet Union? They collaborated with the Nazis too, remember?
The liberals only opposed fascism once it was clear that the Nazis were going to attack them as well. Fascists like Batista in Cuba were worked with to the very end, never once opposing them. As for the soviets, they never did collaborate with the Nazis.
What happened was the soviets spent an entire decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, while the liberals were gleefully working with the Nazis. The soviets signed a non-aggression pact on the eve of war to buy time.
Lol! Wut? The Soviets didn’t form an “anti-Nazi alliance”…they were allied with the Nazis. They made a deal with them to carve up Eastern Europe between their two empires. This was literally the same cynical opportunism that led the Americans to give sanctuary to Nazi scientists after the war. If this means that Liberals are somehow naturally aligned with fascism, in your mind…then so are Communists, by the same criteria. It simply isn’t true, either way.
You are being very selective with your outrage here, to the point of being completely disingenuous. A lot of people collaborated with the Nazis for a wide range of reasons. You claiming that paints everyone of that political type with the same brush, is just intellectually dishonest.
If you were arguing in good faith, you would have to acknowledge that fascists will use anyone of any political persuasion for their own advantage, right up until they are no longer useful…and then stab them in the back. Often literally killing them, en masse. Which is exactly what they did with all their political opponents, in the end.
That goes for Socialists, Liberals, Anarchists, whatever. Everyone NOT a fascist or a collaborator. There are distinctions between these groups, for a reason. You seem to be ignoring those distinctions, out of purely personal political bias.
Thanks for proving you’re as illiterate about history as you are about politics. Now there’s almost no chance any serious adults accidentally think you have anything intelligent to say.
The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
I am being honest here, that’s why I can recognize that since fascism and liberalism are both built on capitalism, they are diametrically opposed to socialism and have more in common with each other than they do with socialism.
It’s amazing that every comment you post is so embarrassingly wrong.
The USSR spent years trying to build an anti-Nazi alliance. 1933 they proposed collective security at the League of Nations. 1935 they signed mutual defense pacts with France and Czechoslovakia. Spring 1939 they sat in Moscow for months begging Britain and France for a real triple alliance. The West stalled. Refused to guarantee the Baltics. Refused to let the Red Army cross Poland to actually fight Hitler. Poland’s elite, more scared of workers than of Nazis, said no too and instead joined Hitler in attacking Czechoslovakia. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened because liberals handed Hitler Eastern Europe rather than work with socialists.
When Soviet troops entered eastern Poland September 17 1939, the Polish state had already collapsed. Government fled to Romania September 15. Warsaw was burning. The army was broken. The lands the USSR moved into? Not Poland proper. Territories Poland had seized and occupied by force in 1919-1921 from Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.
And spare me the nonsense about liberals and fascists. They share a foundation: defense of capitalist property. When capital feels threatened, liberalism drops the mask. Chile 1973. Indonesia 1965. Greece 1967. The Soviet Union abolished the capitalist class. That is a total category difference.
Then there is denazification. The contrast couldn’t be clearer. In the Soviet zone, former Nazis went to labor camps. They worked. They earned minimum wage like other inmates. In the West? Operation Paperclip handed over 1,600+ Nazi scientists, officers, and spies. Wernher von Braun, who used slave labor to build V-2 rockets, became head of NASA’s Apollo program. Adolf Heusinger, Hitler’s Chief of the General Staff, became Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. Johannes Steinhoff, Nazi ace, also chaired NATO’s military committee. Heinz Reinefarth, who massacred civilians in Warsaw, became a respected mayor in West Germany.
I genuinely cannot fathom how someone can be this historically, politically, and materially illiterate and still type with such confidence.
Lol! That’s hilarious. You are proving the point I was making to the other guy, in my last comment. You are selectively omitting all the ways that the Soviet Union did exactly the same thing as the US, after the war.
The Soviets had Operation Osoaviakhim, which used over 6000 Nazi operatives brought in from all over Nazi occupied territories, for their own missile programs, etc. Both Russia and the US were literally conducting almost identical programs across the spectrum, all the way through the entire cold war. It was
The fact that you’re just listing one side’s sketchy profile while completely ignoring the other, is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.
Did you actually read what I wrote or just skim for a keyword?
Yes, the USSR ran Operation Osoaviakhim. They relocated German specialists. And then those specialists were forced to worked in research institutes under massive scrutiny and supervision for minimum wage where they would be executed if they refused to work. Not one of them was made head of the Soviet rocket program. Not one was given a seat on the Central Committee. Not one was appointed to command Warsaw Pact forces.
The Soviet system used their technical labor under massive constraint and threat. The Western system restored their class power. Wernher von Braun didn’t just “work” for NASA. He was a leader. Adolf Heusinger didn’t just “consult” for NATO. He chaired its Military Committee. These weren’t technicians in a lab. They were architects of policy, strategy, and rearmament.
You call that “identical.” That’s not analysis. That’s surrendering to bourgeois propaganda. One system subordinated former fascists to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The other subordinated the postwar order to former fascists. If you can’t grasp that distinction, no amount of facts will help you. But please, keep typing. It’s instructive. I personally couldn’t imagine being so arrogant and idiotic as to embarrass myself to the level you have throughout this thread. You really are showing how you have somewhere between 0 and a negative understanding of history and honestly reality and might possibly be illiterate.
See? Again, this is all framed in an incredibly selective way. This is basically just propaganda speak, for “my side can’t do bad things, only your side can”…and I’m not even defending the US. You’re having a one-sided argument with someone who isn’t arguing with any of the points you’re making…only the fact that you’re leaving out all the parts you don’t like, while white-washi g the parts you do. That’s disingenuous.
If historical record sounds like the soviets were overwhelmingly better than the west, then that’s just your evaluation of the actual historical record. That’s what happened, it isn’t because soviets good and US bad, it’s from fundamental differences in how fascism is treated by communists vs. by liberals.
No it’s the historical record of what actually happened. The fact you don’t like it and wish all countries and systems were equally bad when it comes to fascism doesn’t change that. The USSR for it’s many faults was absolutely antifascist pre, during and post war.
You are exhausting. So arrogant and so utterly wrong. You should be embarrassed I’m surprised the embarrassment hasn’t won out and stopped you from spouting nonsense at least for a bit but I suppose you’re still in the denial phase.
Historical illiteracy and false equivalence.
Things are so much easier when ignoring the parts you don’t like.