the_dunk_tank
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
view the rest of the comments
lmao that answer is so funny, they assiduously stack up this case for Molotov-Rippentrop, then at the summation of western failures they just condemn the USSR anyways. real 'lead a horse to water' hours.
ah yeah Finland the ultra-right white government was totally unsympathetic to the germans, the soviets 'forced' them to be nazis. come the fuck on. how is the continuation war not proving the soviets correct? because they drew 'first blood' and the poor Fins just had to revenge themselves... well past the ceded territory and up to a major russian city where they aided in the deaths of a million innocent civilians. because the disposition of the finnish government (and polish one for that matter) are somehow irrelevant when the same fucking people that opposed the USSR during the civil war were in charge
what's even funnier is they trip into one of my opinions i like to browbeat about, i actually do agree with the assessment that M-R was disadvantageous to the USSR overall too, but not through this silly conception of the sacred borders of (ultra right-wing, barely republican states)---just simply because the Red Army could've whipped through prussia while the germans were committed in France, which would have been better for everyone. it's understandable and explainable why the soviets didn't make that decision, but it still would've been better in hindsight.
Completely agree with your point about M-R possibly being disadvantageous. Just wish Western historians would acknowledge that it is hindsight which makes it clear. Signing the pact makes a lot of sense and wasn't totally disastrous even considering hindsight. In the Hitler-Mannerheim recording, Hitler remarked on his shock at Soviet preparedness for the invasion, and their tank production capacity. This would not have been the case had the pact not bought time.
it's a nakedly unfair (but predictable) double standard that the wallies were allowed to sacrifice spain, austria, & czechoslavakia but the Soviets were supposed to defend fucking poland after 3 years of the wallies telling them to eat shit, but western ultraleft/left-liberals love to assert it. realpolitic appeasement for me, slavish devotion to the sovereignty of tiny nations for thee