South Africa’s biggest party defends black economic policy
South Africa’s biggest party defends black economic policy
An African National Congress official has said the party will not abandon its transformation agenda despite pressure from the USRT International
Zionist Settlers Attack Russian Diplomats in Occupied West Bank
Zionist Settlers Attack Russian Diplomats in Occupied West Bank - teleSUR English
A Russian diplomatic vehicle was targeted last week by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank, in yet another act of aggression carried out under theteleSURenglish
In Video: Russian Drones Foil Ukrainian Attempts To Build Fortifications In Two Directions
In Video: Russian Drones Foil Ukrainian Attempts To Build Fortifications In Two Directions
The Russian military have foiled attempts by Kiev forces to build fortifications in two directions within the special military operation...Anonymous1199 (South Front)
Congress passes bipartisan protections for homebuyers’ data privacy
Congress Passes Reed’s Bill to Curb Abusive Mortgage “Trigger Leads” & Stop Unwanted Spam | U.S. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island
WASHINGTON, DC – After a late Saturday night legislative session, U.S. Senator Jack Reed’s (D-RI) Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act is finally headed...www.reed.senate.gov
Richard Wolff: Collapse of the Dollar & the Death of Europe
- YouTube
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.www.youtube.com
Revealed: “Skyrocketing” scale of UK police's Secret Facial Recognition Searches of Passport and Immigration Databases
- The Government has secretly allowed police forces to search over 150 million UK passport and immigration database photos with “Orwellian” facial recognition technology for 6 years.
- The number of searches of the passport database has “skyrocketed” from 2 in 2020 to 417 in 2023. 16 searches of the immigration database were made in 2023, increasing almost sevenfold to 102 in 2024.
- Campaigners to institute legal action, claiming it is an “historic breach of the right to privacy”.
- Former minister Sir David Davis MP says “It’s outrageous that parliamentarians and the public have been kept in the dark about this extraordinary surveillance system”.
Campaigners reveal “Skyrocketing” increase in police facial recognition searches of passport and immigration databases — Big Brother Watch
Defending Civil Liberties, Protecting PrivacyCampaigners reveal “Skyrocketing” increase in police facial recognition searches of passport and immigration databases — Big Brother Watch
Managing Proxmox VE via Terraform and GitOps
i am not a devops engineer. i appreciate any critique or correction.
Managing Proxmox VE via Terraform and GitOps
This program enables a declarative, IaC method of provisioning multiple resources in a Proxmox Virtual Environment.
Deployment
- Clone this GitLab/Hub repository.
- Go to the GitLab Project/Repository > Settings > CI/CD > Runner > Create project runner, mark Run untagged jobs and click Create runner.
- On Step 1, copy the runner authentication token, store it somewhere and click View runners.
- On the PVE Web UI, right-click on the target Proxmox node and click Shell.
- Execute this command in the PVE shell.
bash <(curl -s https://gitlab.com/joevizcara/terraform-proxmox/-/raw/master/prep.sh)[!CAUTION]
The content of this shell script can be examined before executing it. It can be executed on a virtualized Proxmox VE to observe what it does. It will create a privileged PAM user to authenticate via an API token. It creates a small LXC environment for GitLab Runner to manage the Proxmox resources. Because of the API limitations between the Terraform provider and PVE, it will necessitate to add the SSH public key from the LXC to the authorized keys of the PVE node to write the cloud-init configuration YAML files to the local Snippets datastore. It will also add a few more data types that can be accepeted in the local datastore (e.g. Snippets, Import). Consider enabling two-factor authentication on GitLab if this is to be applied on a real environment.
- Go to GitLab Project/Repository > Settings > CI/CD > Variables > Add variable:
Key: PM_API_TOKEN_SECRET \
Value: the token secret value from credentials.txt
- If this repository is cloned locally, adjust the values of the .tf files to conform with the PVE onto which this will be deployed.
[!NOTE]
The Terraform provider resgistry is bpg/proxmox for reference.
git pushsignals will trigger the GitLab Runner and will apply the infrastructure changes.
- If the first job stage succeeded, go to GitLab Project/Repository > Build > Jobs and click Run ▶️ button of the apply infra job.
- If the second job stage succeeded, go to the PVE WUI to start the new VMs to test or configure.
[!NOTE]
To configure the VMs, go to PVE WUI and right-click the gitlab-runner LXC and click Console.
The GitLab Runner LXC credentials are in the credentials.txt.
Inside the console, dossh k3s@<ip-address-of-the-VM>.
They can be converted into Templates, converted into an HA cluster, etc.
The IP addresses are declared in variables.tf.
Diagramme
like this
Endymion_Mallorn likes this.
Well it's a templatized thing, not exactly code. If it does what you need it to do, then just feel okay using it.
Fair warning though: it will break. Lock your package versions, and don't be surprised when an interface changes and you need to rework it.
Not greenwashing, but still… A closer look at big tech’s 2025 sustainability reports
Not greenwashing, but still… A closer look at big tech’s 2025 sustainability reports
What big tech’s latest sustainability reports say (and don’t say) about the true environmental cost of AI.policyreview.info
What a nuclear reactor on the Moon really means for NASA's future
What a nuclear reactor on the Moon really means for NASA’s future
There are real concerns with long-term power generation on the Moon; nuclear could be the answer. But for NASA, will the cost be too high?Ethan Siegel (Big Think)
World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR, led by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin respectively. As of 1 September 1939, the very first day of World War Two, both totalitarian regimes held joint military action against Poland. Starting from 1 September, German bombers were guided onto their targets in Poland from a radio station located in MinskIn accordance with the secret protocol as to Hitler-Stalin Pact, also known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the new allies – Germany and the Soviet Union – were to jointly invade Poland. Red Army troops were to march into Poland three days following the Reich’s attack. Joseph Stalin, however, did not adhere to the protocol, with his troops advancing into Poland only 17 days after the Germans hit. The delay was caused by concerns over the propaganda discourse in the West, which Stalin wanted to focus on Germany solely.
The class struggle is a cornerstone of Karl Marx’s philosophy. It requires a restructuring of society in accordance with communism. When put in practice, this brought about genocide: the killing of 10 to 15 percent of a given society as well as annihilating its elites and those strata of society that were unwelcome in a communist state. For communists they stood in the way of communist rule and of harnessing entire societies under a totalitarian regime.
A post-war war. The years of 1944–1963 in Poland.
Poland was the first country in Europe to experience World War Two, which begun on 1 September 1939. Poland was also the first country to engage in armed combat with the joined forces of Nazi Germany and the USSR in their attempt the change the world…Warsaw Institute
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 days 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.
the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact
Putting aside all the usual arguments that get dismissed: What were the complex and mitigating factors that required supplying the Nazi war machine with more raw materials (oil, iron, grain, cotton, rubber, et al.) after the invasion of Poland? At the same time that the famously duplicitous Americans were enacting German tariffs and shifting economic support entirely to the Allies?
- The Soviets desparately needed finished goods that they either couldn't produce, or couldn't produce in necessary quantities, and the West would not trade them for them.
- The US's tariffs were notoriously symbolic. Ford, Coke, Dow Chemical, and many more continued business even into World War II. USian bombers were instructed to avoid USian factories in Nazi Germany.
10 US Companies That Worked with Nazi Germany
The United States is no stranger to controversial history. Throughout the decades, America has been a hotbed of clashing social rights issues, from abolition to women's rights.Carl Seaver (History Defined)
- Damn, if only there were suppliers of finished goods that also were strategically aligned on fighting the Nazis. But if you can't blame the USSR for a half measure non-aggression pact with the Nazis then you surely can't blame the Allies for withholding trade to a country not committed to the fight. After all, the Soviets got the supplies they wanted once they were actually in the war.
- Nazi economic policy prevented profits from leaving Germany, and the fascist regimes were not subtle in their nationalization threats. Not much of a surprise that private enterprise will toe the line when faced with takeover vs nominal ownership. In terms of actual trade (ie: not Coke factories staying open to make Fanta), US exports to Germany dropped 97% from 1938-1939.
I'm by no means arguing for the Democratic™️ ideological purity of the Allies, but it's pretty clear what the universal political thinking was in the lead up to WWII. Everyone (from Hindenburg up to the USSR) thought they could keep the Nazis at arms length and aimed at their rivals. A few fascist atrocities can be overlooked so long as they happen to the right people.
- The USSR spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, the west wanted the Nazis and communists to kill each other. The west had multiple non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany, and turned down many offers of alliances with the Soviets against the Nazis.
- US exports fell, they were of course at war, but the US continued business and was doing a ton of business in the lead-up to the war. Further, post-war, the US protected Nazis and even put them in charge of NATO to make use of their anti-communism, like Adolf Heusinger.
It's pretty clear that the decade leading up to World War II, the Soviets begged and pleaded for an anti-Nazi alliance, but people like Churchill, Ford, etc. loved the Nazis so much that this was impossible until the Nazis did what the Soviets said they would.
- Yes, the West wanted the Nazis and communists to fight and the Soviets wanted the Nazis to fight the West. Both sides acted accordingly. Why is this hard to admit?
- So? The other countries on the belligerent list are receiving more support by several orders of magnitude. Not to mention trade to the Allies and other European countries continuing to go up as the war went on, clearly the war wasn't the deciding factor.
The numbers OBJECTIVELY show a decrease in German trade to a pitiful amount. In the lead up to the US's entry, quite literally the lowest of any European country (let alone adjusted per-capita). German U-boats were sinking US trade vessels up until the end, strange way to treat your trade parter?
The numbers OBJECTIVELY show USSR-German trade in war materials increasing as the war starts, with no significant support to the Allies right up until they're invaded. There's not any arguing this.
Pointing to post-WWII is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Either country could (and often does) gesture broadly at the Cold War to justify their actions.
Why is it so hard to admit that Saint Stalin and the USSR engaged in hard geopolitics? Somehow you're trying to push the narrative of the Soviets being weak victims that begged and pleaded and were forced to concede to German demands. But you'll also claim they're the sole reason that the Allies won WWII. Which is it?
There's a counterfactual history where the Soviets remain neutral and the Allies will still almost certainly win (though at a greater cost). The Axis simply didn't have the manpower or resource access to keep up, hence their need to engage the USSR for oil. They certainly sped the war to it's end, but that doesn't change the fact that they could have made many different decisions if snuffing out fascism was their top priority.
- The Soviets wanted to fight the Nazis with the west the entire time, hence the numerous proposals for allied anti-fascist coalitions. The Soviets weren't on good terms with the West, but saw the Nazis as the far greater threat and acted rationally.
- As comrade @AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml pointed out (that you cannot see) in this post, the US distorted economic reports and cloaked their continued ties to Nazi Germany throughout the war.
The Soviets were able to beat the Nazis, but at massive personal cost in human lives. They barely eaked out a win, because while they were massively industrializing, they were a poor, developing country against a country with a century-long industrial headstart. They needed to buy as much time as possible, as they were catching up, but the distance was still large. Those are the basic facts.
Ah the classic .ml responses: the USSR really wanted to do something but was forced to do the opposite because of those nasty capitalist states and also we'll just reject all sources we don't agree with. It's as iconic as the inverse US claims but you never fail to see the irony.
If you don't want to believe US reports, just look at Germans attacking US ships well before their entry into the war. It's not some secret conspiracy that the Allies were benefitting more from the US's position than the Axis by orders of magnitude.
They saw the Nazis as such a great threat that they needed to give them the materials to fuel Panzers and make the ammunition that killed Allied soldiers? What? If they truly wanted the Nazis gone first and foremost they would not have done that. It doesn't hold up to any logic.
The US did more trade with the allies, never said they didn't, but that they continued to profit off the Nazis throughout the war.
Secondly, the Soviet Union was severely underdeveloped. It was rapidly industrializing, but needed finished goods that they couldn't produce and the Allies would not trade them for. The goods they got from the Nazis as a trade contributed towards the defeat of the Nazis.
they continued to profit off the Nazis throughout the war
As did the Soviets, what are we even talking about here?? You just respond to each criticism with "they needed to do it and what about the US", ignoring the multitude of other actions they could have taken if their priorities matched your claims.
Allies would not trade them
Which they did once they had Soviet support. They almost certainly would have received the same support if they joined them in 1939.
It was official USSR foreign policy that the communist revolution should spread to workers of the world in all countries. Regardless of the detriments or merits of that, you can't ignore it when examining their foreign relations. Of course they got a different treatment...
The goods they got from the Nazis as a trade contributed towards the defeat of the Nazis.
They absolutely did not! One of the main factors that broke down the USSR-German relationship was a refusal to reciprocate military technology and materials.
The Soviets didn't have a profit-driven economy, what are you talking about? The Nazis killed 20 million Soviets and committed genocide against them. What "multitudes of actions?" The Soviets directly tried to establish an anti-Nazi coalition while the West traded heavily with the Nazis.
The goods the Soviets got from the Nazis included machinery, optical tools, etc, finished goods that the Soviets needed desparately to continue industrializing, and could not get the Allies to trade them for them. The communist-Nazi "relationship" never was on positive terms, they absolutely hated each other and were preparing for war with the other.
The Soviets didn't have a profit-driven economy, what are you talking about?
Profit: to derive benefit, to be of service or advantage, a valuable return. Are you ESL or do you just have a conditioned response from all the propoganda you gobble up?
Brother in Christ if you can't even admit giving Nazis oil, iron, rare earth minerals and other war necessities is bad then there's no discussion to be had here. And you keep pointing it back to the West as if I care or that's even relevant to the USSR's actions. Dozens of countries can equivocate and justify their ethically grey actions surrounding WWII, why do the Soviets deserve special treatment in your mind?
The world is a massive place, diplomacy has a million facets, there are always options and trade offs. If you can't find a single flaw in the USSR's actions then I pity you. You've lost sight of your purported support of class struggle and solidary in favor of waving around Cold War flags.
This is extremely silly. Profit in economics terms, as in production for profit. The USSR did not profit either in the economic term for it, nor in your generalized terms. Throwing ESL speakers under the bus and insulting me over a semantical argument when it was clear that I am saying the Soviet Union was socialist and thus its trades were not for profits is silly.
Secondly, it would have been great if the USSR could have traded with the west for what it needed, but the west denied them. The Soviet Union got what it needed, which contributed towards their victory over the Nazis.
Profit in English has a usage with the definition I gave. You said yourself they were doing it to their own advantage. They benefited from it, there was some profit to them in the arrangement (unless they like helping Nazi's out of the kindness of their heart). It's not throwing anyone under the bus to say I can't have a conversation if you lack a grasp on the meaning of words in their context.
Would have been great if they traded with them, but it would have also been beneficial to not sign the non-aggression pact and trade agreements, painting yourself as not aligning with their interests while also preaching a revolutionary gospel. You're stacking the deck against yourself. But again, we're talking in circles and you refuse to concede literally any ounce of fault or poor political maneuvering, not much to be said.
When I said the USSR was not a "profit-driven economy," I meant it was socialist. When I said the US was profiting, I meant directly, through the standard English usage of profit as business related profits. Your only counter is to assert that I'm either uneducated or speaking English as a second language, but neither of those if true should bar me from conversation anyways. It's quite literally ad hominem.
The Soviet Union signed the non-agression pact to buy time for them to further close the gap and increase the chances of beating the Nazis. Time was on the soviet side. Nazi Germany was increasingly in need of new colonies, the soviets needed more industrialization. I concede mistakes made by the Soviet Union, the fact that I don't concede the non-aggression pact as one doesn't mean I don't accept any. I don't think you have any evidence to support your claims, here.
What should the Soviets have done instead?
Not an ad-hominem when it's directly pertinent to the debate and an example of your implicit bias. If you take not understanding a word or filtering it through your own bias that be stupidity then that's on you.
What should the Soviets have done instead?
Again, the conversation won't go anywhere because no matter what I say, you'll say it couldn't be done.
That there was literally no possibility of making concessions to the Allies or leveraging their resources in a more indirect way. No way to manage your political footing that didn't require reliance on Nazis or giving them an open flank in Eastern Europe. No German aggression that could be deflected and spun to international support. They definitely needed to make a photo-op of signing documents next to Nazis and of Soviet troops shaking hands with Germans. They needed to immediately start the annexation and sovietization of territories fresh off their liberation from inevitable German capture. No other way, definitely needed to happen like that.
Talking to you is a clinic in historical determinism.
No, you directly suggested a false binary, that if I disagreed with you, I was either speaking ESL or was uneducated, when the truth is that I'm a native english speaker and have done a great deal of studying on the history of socialism and socialist theory. I understand what profit means, you stated that the USSR was profiting off of the Nazis during the war as equivalent to me stating that the US profited off of the Nazis during wartime. My use of the word profit was direct, and oriented towards the capitalist nature of the US's involvement in the Nazi economy, I did not mean a general, vague notion of "benefit."
As for what the Soviets did, they did try, for an entire decade, to get the west to agree to an anti-Nazi pact. They offered hundreds of thousands of troops, and materiel like bombers, tanks, etc. They were rejected. The west wanted the soviets and Nazis to wipe each other out entirely, only engaging when they saw the real threat of the Nazis. The Nazis genuinely believed Britain would join them, and they were close to correct, Churchill was a genocidal monster and a vehemont racist.
I have not researched the Fascists’ aggression on U.S. merchant vessels prior to December 1941, but the Fascists did, for byspel, intercept neutral vessels such as the Kingdom of Sweden’s Gurtrud Bratt on Sept. 24, 1939 because they were heading for Allied régimes like the United Kingdom, and we know for a fact that Swedish capitalists were generally on good terms with the Fascists anyway.
Apart from .world blocking Lemmygrad content, the other reason that I am not bothering to engage directly with this anticommunist is that I know that they’ll defend Finland the nanosecond that anybody brings it up, proving that all their hype over the Molotov Cocktease Pact is based on false pretenses. (Sometimes, merely mentioning the word ‘Finland’ is enough to make generic anticommunists immediately drop their make-believe antifascism.) Try telling anticommunists that the Fascists knew from experience that Soviet demands were ‘much harder to meet than Finnish demands’, and watch how little they’ll care.
Corporate America could have been an Axis power with the sheer amount of stuff that it was marketing to the Third Reich throughout its existence. Personally, I think that that was far more consequential than the German–Soviet transactions of 1939–1941, and that anticommunists can blow that off as ‘no biggie’ is another reason that I cannot take their obsession over the German–Soviet Pact seriously.
Not just after the invasion of Poland, right up until the invasion of the Soviet Union.
On the Russian side, General Thomas, Chief of the German War Industry Department, recorded that “the Russians carried out their deliveries as planned, right up to the start of the attack. Even during the last few days, transports of India rubber from the Far East were completed by express transit trains.”^30^
This was not because the Russians did not expect to be attacked. As early as September 18, 1940, the Germans learned about anti-German propaganda in the Red Army, and interpreted it as a response to fear of attack by Germany.^31^ The Kremlin fulfilled its economic commitments to the end because it was determined to give Hitler no cause to attack. Until late in the day, also, the industrial and war materials received from Germany were a very important supplement to Russia’s armament efforts. The raw materials which Germany received were mostly perishable, while the arms and machines received by Russia remained when war came.
The Cold War & Its Origins, 1917-1960, Vol. I, Denna F. Flemming, 1961, Chapter 6.
Even if September 1939 should be set as the starting point for WWII (which it should not be), the Slovak Republic played a significant rôle in invading Poland with the Third Reich, and its contribution therewith was much more of a joint effort than the Red Army’s intervention in western Ukraine. It is strange that the anticommunist’s source said nothing at all about the Slovak Republic, almost as if its omission were a political decision and the Warsaw Institute has no interest in honest education. Hmmm…
Oh, and if massacring élites were the only way to negate capitalism, it seems that the DPRK missed the memo when it disprivileged landlords.
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.
Same people excusing Soviet pact with Nazis bemoan Finland for doing the same. Where is the consistency. Not saying you are doing that but it's always interested me.
The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis
The article is hilarious desperate in doing handwringing and trying to sidestep the whole thing. "Well akshually it didn't invade Poland because the government had ceased to exist!" But it also claims Soviet Union couldn't have invaded Poland because Poland didn't declare war on Soviet Union. Lmao
Secret Protocol, Article I & II
Article IIn the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilnius area is recognized by each party.
Article II
editIn the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.
This was them dividing the country between them for when the war was concluded. Unless we pretend we don't know what this means
In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state,
It was an agreement for the Nazis to not press beyond certain boundaries
And for Soviet Union to not press beyond a certain boundary. That's how those divisions generally work.
From the beginning, the German government repeatedly asked Molotov whether the Soviet Union would keep to its side of the partition bargain.[95][96] The Soviet forces were holding fast along their designated invasion points pending finalization of the five-month-long undeclared war with Japan in the Far East, successful end of the conflict for the Soviet Union, which occurred in the Battles of Khalkhin Gol. On 15 September 1939, Molotov and Shigenori Tōgō completed their agreement that ended the conflict, and the Nomonhan ceasefire went into effect on 16 September 1939. Now cleared of any "second front" threat from the Japanese, Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin ordered his forces into Poland on 17 September.
Aside from optics, that
Soviet Union and Nazis never agreed to “divide the area.”
Secret protocol, article 2
In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula, and San. '
Also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E…
These aren't implications, these are very clear cut. The "in the event of a territorial and political rearrangement" is the implied invasion. The dividing the area is just in plain language.
the Soviet Union and Nazis never agreed to “divide the area.”
It's in reply to that.
They agreed to spheres of influence
Yes that's what the secret protocol was about
You're implying
- That the Soviets intended on invading Europe, and having the pact last
- That the Soviets wanted to invade.
Neither is backed up by the facts at hand.
They didn't, though. They went to war to stop the Nazis, the only time it came into use was when the Nazis invaded Poland and the soviets prevented them from taking all of Poland.
Also, there's no need to reply on both threads.
The dividing into speheres of influence and subsequent actions in those spheres all happened. Not just Poland but elsewhere. You're more arguing about justification, which is different matter.
Also, there’s no need to reply on both threads.
Reply to just one of these next and we'll continue on that thread. Up to you which
The German invasion began on 1 September 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, and one day after the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union had approved the pact.
I wonder what you think the pact is talking about if not the invasion that happened right after.
Ok, so you started by saying the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was where they planned to invade Poland together. Now you're saying it doesn't, it just references some alleged plan from elsewhere that you have not provided. Again, begging the question: your assertion that the pact constitutes a plan to co-invade Poland requires you to assume they already had to plan to invade Poland that the pact is secretly referencing.
Putting aside that even after the Soviet archives opened, nobody has been able to find a single record of actual strategic coordination between the two armies in this alleged "coordinated invasion"
It’s true that the invasion wasn’t coordinated
Great, argument over, glad you admit you were wrong
The Soviets absolutely did agree to invade, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism. The source you linked tactically omits several facts that completely undermine the narrative presented, such as the fact that the Red Army coordinated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk during the Nazi invasion, that the agreed borders of the "spheres of influence" split a sovereign nation down the middle (which is impossible if Poland had remained sovereign), the joint military victory parade in Brest, etcetera.
Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle?
If there was a genuine concern the Soviets could have guaranteed Polish independence against the Nazis. They did not, instead they jointly agreed to invade and divide the country.
The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
The UK and France declared war 2 days after Hitler invaded Poland (Hitler did not expect the UK to guarantee Poland, causing him to delay the invasion by a week while he deliberated on whether to go forward). Military spending in both the UK and France was significantly ramped up after Hitler first started showing aggression, but neither believed themselves to be ready for a war. War requires preparation, and they weren't so delusional to believe they'd be able to avoid war forever. What neither the UK nor France expected however was that Nazi Germany's war machine would ramp up significantly faster than their own.
What's historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship, or claiming the "spheres of influence" were a real plan for dividing Europe and not a way for the Soviets to dissuade the Nazis from pressing too far while ramping up for war. Both the Soviets and the Nazis knew war was coming between them, the treaty was always on borrowed time and in no-way signaled long-term planning on either side, the Soviets wanted to stop the Nazi threat and the Nazis intended on wiping out the Soviets, "spheres of influence" be damned.
The Eastern Pact was the hopeful alliance between Poland and the Soviets (among others like Lithuania) against the Nazis, but this fell through due to France and Britain working against it, and Polish hatred of Russians. From the French ambassador to Poland at the time:
If, in reality, the most serious danger for Poland is Germany, "the Russian", whatever the regime to which he is subject, always appears to the Poles as "enemy n° 1": if the German remains an adversary, he is no less a European and a man of order; the Russian is, for the Pole, a barbarian, an Asian, a dissolving and corrupting element, with whom any contact would be perilous, any compromise fatal.— Léon Noël, [17], 1938-06-31, Warsaw, p. 975-976
The UK and France regularly sabotaged talks of alliances with the Soviets and made their non-aggression pacts far earlier, doing far more trade and having far more Nazi synpathy among their publics and ruling class. Churchill is a famous fan of the Nazis until his hand was forced.
What's historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship
The Nazis took Brest initially, despite it being past the demarcation line. When the Soviets arrived, the Nazis voluntarily withdrew and both armies saluted one another. They then held a joint victory parade before the Nazis returned westwards, back behind the demarcation line.
The Nazis definitely weren't "pushed out", that's BS. As much as you say that the west had Nazi sympathies, they never actively invaded a third nation together, collaborating militarily, and divided the spoils. But you conveniently forgot to address the military cooperation between the Nazis and the Soviets during their joint invasion of Poland, because it directly undermines your false narrative.
You're also conveniently ignoring that the Soviets "accidentally" let slip what their secret protocols with Germany entailed to the Lithuanians, in order to pressure them into joining with the Soviets after the invasion of Poland. The Polish distaste for Russia also may have had something to do with the decades of Russian imperialism the Polish suffered from.
Undermining alliance talks is something all the great powers did. The Polish Intermarium was sabotated by the Soviets for example. That's not unique to the Allies in the slightest.
The Nazis took Brest, and when the Soviets arrived, the Nazis pulled back rather than directly antagonizing the Soviets and risking war before Barbarossa. This isn't complicated, had the Soviets not arrived, the Nazis would have stayed or pushed onward. As for the Nazi request for support, the Soviets only partially complied, trying to tread the line between collapsing the non-agression pact and giving as little support as possible. I didn't bother responding to this point because you were already lying elsewhere.
The Soviets informing Lithuania of the details of the non-aggression pact was a good thing. What's your point, exactly? That the nation that spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, was ideologically opposed to Nazism, when the Nazis were murdering communists, were secretly friends the whole time and that the war was an unexpected betrayal? This kind of nonsense anti-communism is historical revisionism and erasure of context.
It remains true that the country that did the most to try to stop the Nazi threat before World War II, and contributed the most to stopping the Nazis during it, was the Soviet Union, and it isn't close.
The Soviets arrived in Brest because that's what they had agreed upon with the Nazis. The Nazis just stuck to their end of the deal. Your attempt to frame this as the Soviets "liberating" Brest from the Nazis is laughably inaccurate. There was no antagonism when the Soviets arrived.
The Nazis would have had to stay in Brest if the Soviets didn't show up, because both parties also agreed to suppress any Polish resistance against either side. The Nazis suddenly leaving would have given an opening to Polish resistance.
The Soviets basically told Lithuania "we decided to divvy up eastern Europe with the Nazis. You are on our side of the demarcation line, and we already invaded Poland. Know what happens when you resist". It was a direct threat, not a promise of an alliance.
The UK and France guaranteed Polish independence and declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded. The Soviets could have done the same, but didn't. Instead, they joined forces with the Nazis. They were just as ineffective at stopping the Nazis as the Allies were, when he wasn't directly helping them out. Once war was declared that picture shifts, and the Soviets delivered an immense effort to stop the Nazis, most notably their sacrifice in human lives (something that must be respected and remembered). But before the war that was very different, despite attempts to minimize the Soviet collaboration by revisionists.
There was no antagonism from the Nazis because they had agreed to not press farther, or risk breaking the non-aggression pact. Without the non-aggression pact, Poland would have been totally colonized by the Nazis and subject to the Holocaust. It effectively stalled the Nazi advance without the Soviets needing to go to war quite yet.
The Soviets informed Lithuania to warn them of Nazi aggression, not to threaten them. Britain and France declared war but didn't do jack shit, to the point that this era was remembered as the "Phoney War." What happened next, was Britain extending diplomacy with the USSR and trying to finally form a cohesive alliance.
Again, because you're relentlessly dodging this, what’s your point, exactly? That the nation that spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, was ideologically opposed to Nazism, when the Nazis were murdering communists, were secretly friends the whole time and that the war was an unexpected betrayal? This kind of nonsense anti-communism is historical revisionism and erasure of context.
My point is that your link claiming the Soviets didn't agree to invade Poland with the Nazis is historical revisionism, blatantly ignores facts and context and just does not hold up under mild scrutiny. It's literally what I stated in my first comment.
When the Soviets did not manage to get an alliance with the west (the west still deemed the communists a huge threat as well), they did genuinely attempt to ally with the Nazis. And that's what initially happened. Stalin didn't believe the alliance would last of course, but ultimately he too was surprised by how early Hitler invaded. Molotov even called fascism "a matter of taste", to demonstrate the collaboration between the two nations at that point.
The "Phoney war" has always been a bit of a misnomer. Poland fell before the British expeditionary force could even be deployed. Later revealed French intelligence showed that France severly overestimated the German strength on the French border. They didn't press hard yet because they believed they wouldn't be able to.
But they UK and France didn't declare war for performative reasons. They stepped in, even if not immediately effectively, whereas the Soviets initially collaborated with the Nazis and waited to be attacked instead. They too could have unilaterally guaranteed Poland, yet chose not too. They spied an opportunity for themselves to regain lands lost to Poland in an earlier war instead and took it.
The Soviets, plainly and simply, did not agree to invade Poland. That was not a part of the non-aggression pact, nor what "spheres of influence" entailed. Those were lines the other party was not meant to cross if the likely war broke out, and secondly neither party expected the other to uphold them long-term. The Soviets never intended on allying with the Nazis, non-aggression is not an alliance. You are doing historical revisionism, as much as you deride me for it.
As for the British and French, again, they did absolutely nothing of value and watched it all happen. Should the soviets have let Poland fall entirely to the Nazis? Should the soviets have launched a war they weren't ready for? Seems to me you wished the soviets were stronger than they were at the time and could have taken on a far more industrialized power with a fair degree of confidence, or otherwise let Poland fall to the Nazis and be subject to Nazi slaughter and the Holocaust.
Explain to me why the Soviets agreed on a sphere of influence that went straight down the middle of a sovereign country. Explain to me why the Soviets coordinated militarily with the Luftwaffe during the invasion, even before the Soviets entered the war. You keep incessantly dodging these questions because the facts do not fit your false narrative.
The UK and France weren't ready for war either. As already mentioned (which you also keep ignoring) the BEF wasn't deployable before Poland fell, and France believed they weren't able to attack and defeat Germany yet. Despite that, they declared war.
The Soviets could have unilaterally guaranteed the Poles. Such a guarantee, on top of the Allied one, could have deterred Hitler for longer. The Soviet army could at least have given the Poles a fighting chance. The Germans would have been less effective without the military assistance from the Soviets. Instead, they did prepare the Red Army for war; one against Poland.
The Germans weren't ready for a two-front war yet. With no eastern front left, they were able to break through France and capitulate them. With the knowledge that the Germans would be fighting in Russia, France may have successfully invaded the Nazis.
I didn't dodge either of those points. They agreed to spheres of influence that contained areas of Ukraine and Lithuania, inhabited by ethnic Ukrainians and Lithuanians, and they didn't give support, they only partially complied in a way that didn't really help.
I'm aware that France didn't do anything, the BEF wasn't deployable in time and they actively sabotaged talked of alliances leading up tk that moment.
The Soviets could not risk their lives protecting a country that hated them and starting a war they would have likely lost. The west had proven incapable of allying with the Soviets as a preventative measure. Germany would not have been less effective, if you actually checked the article I linked the impact of the Soviet's partial compliance was marginal at best.
This is all alt-history fanfic on your part. It remains true that the country that did the most to try to stop the Nazi threat before World War II, and contributed the most to stopping the Nazis during it, was the Soviet Union, and it isn’t close.
You did not address the fact that the Soviets directly collaborated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk. You did not address the fact that the Soviets had already geared up for an invasion on the Polish border.
Don't claim you did when anyone can read you didn't.
You misrepresent the facts surrounding Brest. The article you referred to does these things to: omit the facts that don't match your narrative. You ignore historical context and have now resorted to putting up a strawman regarding which country did most to stop the Nazis, which was never the point I challenged you on (the historical fact that the Soviets did indeed agree to divide Poland with the Nazis and collaborated on the invasion).
There's no point in continuing this conversation if you keep failing to address these key points that directly undermine your narrative.
I did address those. Plus, based on the voting ratios, it seems that "anyone that can read" is siding more with me than you. Normally I think referencing vote ratios is a stupid frame of argument, but if you're going to make the appeal first I may as well point out that it's in my favor, not yours.
I'm not ignoring historical context, you're trying to invent a narrative where the Soviets, for a very short period, were actually super pro-Nazi and totally fine with them, surrounded on both sides by decades of hostile opposition and offers to send a million troops on the conditions of forming an anti-Nazi alliance. The country that hated the Nazis from the beginning, and killed 85% of the total Nazi deaths in World War II, somehow forgot its history and decided to collaborate with the Nazis willingly.
I guess I'll show you a mirror: there’s no point in continuing this conversation if you keep failing to address these key points that directly undermine your narrative.
I did address those.
Please cite this directly because I'm not reading it in your replies.
you're trying to invent a narrative where the Soviets, for a very short period, were actually super pro-Nazi and totally fine with them
Here's the thing: this is exactly what the communist parties outside Russia also struggled with. Stalin made a deal with Hitler. Molotov literally said "Fascism? Fascism is purely a matter of taste".
For the first two weeks of the war, the communist parties felt conflicted but ultimately didn't need to change their stance. They were anti-fascist after all, and the UK and France had now declared war on the Nazis so this received the CPs support. Maurice Thorez even joined the French army (for a couple weeks until he left to go to Moscow).
But then, Stalin invaded Poland, and they met the Nazis as allies in the middle. Stalin publicly came out in support of Hitler's "peace programme". This caused some serious conflicts in the CPs in the west. Suddenly the logic shifted:
- the UK and France had colonial empires, Germany did not
- the UK and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around
- the Germans had signed a pact of friendship with the USSR
So surely, it was better to focus on being anti-imperialist, focused against the UK and France instead of focusing on Germany.
You'll find many socialist and communist newspapers started putting out pro-German propaganda (and some were banned for it). This only changed after 41, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
The Soviets were never "totally fine" with the Nazis. But for a time they were happy to see the Nazis turned towards the west, and they saw the opportunity to get some benefits for themselves too.
Despite the [German–Soviet] pact, Communist resistance started very quickly in the Pas‐de‐Calais. The particular circumstances of the Forbidden Zone allowed for an independence of action that Auguste Lecœur and Julien Hapiot were able to take maximum advantage of. They decided, in August 1940, to begin organising illegal Communist activity against the occupying forces.⁷[…]
Thus, the Communists of the Pas‐de‐Calais began their anti‐[Reich] propaganda very early on. Nevertheless, the Communists of the region did not think of themselves as disloyal to their party and their confidence in the Soviet Union was as strong as ever, it was simply that the daily reality of the Forbidden Zone pushed then more rapidly to a more anti‐[Reich] position than their comrades elsewhere.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
the daily reality of the Forbidden Zone pushed then more rapidly to a more anti‐[Reich] position than their comrades elsewhere.
Yeah this was my point. It took a bit for various communist groups to pivot back to being primarily anti-reich. Those who suffered directly under the Nazis turned faster, e.g. those in northern France took the anti-reich position before the British communists did (they remained more anti-imperialist aimed at the UK, until the Soviets were invaded).
Far from possessing a single will, the reaction of Communists to the [German]–Soviet Pact and Chamberlain’s declaration of war was confused and heterogeneous, for the war shattered the Party’s whole conception of international politics.
(Source.)
Campaigns to demand shelter facilities, directed by the Communist Party, were also mounted. The government feared that Communist agitation about poor shelter provision in the working-class areas of London might provide fertile ground for political subversion. One incident of this campaign for improved shelter facilities was a demonstration at the Savoy in London's West End. This became the subject of Cabinet investigations. The minutes of the Cabinet meeting record the recommendation that:
…strong action should, if necessary, be taken to prevent demonstrations by bodies of people purporting to seek better shelter accommodation…'
(Source.)
In January 1941, the central committee of the Communist Party of Belgium (Parti Communiste de Belgique, PCB) had started producing Le Drapeau Rouge (Red Flag) clandestinely. While formally supporting the [German–Soviet] pact and placing the blame for the war equally on Berlin and London, in its second edition proclaimed itself to be "against national-socialism, the agent of big business. The struggle for socialism continues."The resolution of the central committee "accepts the patriotic character of the resistance developed by certain sections of the Anglophile bourgeoisie and recognises the necessity to create a parallel movement to avoid the working class being dragged along behind".¹⁵ Although it is equally fair to say that the anti[fascist] sentiments that were widespread in the Belgian working class pushed the PCB into opposing the occupation more forcefully than the logic of their support for the [German–Soviet] pact would imply.
(Source.)
Albert Ouzoulias, commander of the Bataillons de la Jeunesse (Youth Battalions), armed wing of the Jeunesse Communiste said:
"For us, even a Nazi was a human being. The discussions had centred on this question. The comrades refused to execute a German soldier who could have been a Communist comrade from Hamburg or a worker from Berlin. Even an officer could have been an anti-Nazi teacher. At least, everyone felt that killing a Gestapo officer was justified. But our comrades did not understand that the best way to defend our country during a war was to kill the maximum number of German officers. This would hasten the end of the war and the end of the misfortune that has affected many of the peoples of the world, including the German people. Internationalism at this time was to kill the largest possible number of Nazis".⁵⁵In fact, the majority of Communists were happy to be rid of the [German–Soviet] pact and were quickly comfortable with the combativity of the new line.
(Source.)
Blitz and the bomber offensive: a case study in British home propaganda, 1939-45
The thesis is a case study of British home front propaganda in the period 1939-4 5, with particular reference to film propaganda; newsreels, official films, and feature films. It examines propaganda about German bombing raids against Britain duringStephanie Fisher (www.academia.edu)
I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to say here. You seem to be supporting my point that in 39, the communists were primarily anti-imperialist, which by 41 had pivoted back to being primarily anti-reich. They obviously didn't like the reich in that time, that would be ridiculous. But they did in some ways echo some of the pro-German propaganda (eg blaming London for the war).
Your first source also confirms what I'm saying about the confusion caused by the war and the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. The assumption was that the imperialist west would ally with the Nazis and that the Soviets would be fighting the fascists. Yet in a span of 2-3 weeks, the reality was that the Nazis had allied with the Soviets and that the imperialists were fighting the fascists instead. Hence the mentioned confusion and the lack of heterogeneity in the response; various reasons were invented to support the Soviets in this new arrangement (quite interestingly a fair few of those I've seen mentioned here actually, e.g. the "protecting the Poles" line, but at the time it was also argued by some that the USSR had a right to take back those lands from Poland. Though none of them seemed to deny an invasion had taken place altogether like some here are suggesting).
I'm not really sure what the snark is for, I'm asking you a genuine question because you seem to be genuinely engaging and doing actual research.
You listed a number of sources but I didn't quite get what exactly you were replying, so that's why I asked for a clarification. It's a genuine attempt at conversation 🙁
To be honest, when I first saw the claim about the Minsk radio station I immediately wondered if it was real, but The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pg. 621 does briefly discuss it and the author cited the ‘German Foreign Office papers, […] p. 480’. Strangely, though, not that many sources discuss it, and the few that I did find had surprisingly little to say about it; finding in depth English information on this radio station is frustratingly uneasy. A couple sources (The Fate of Poles in the USSR and The Polish Review) specifically claim that this station helped the Luftwaffe bomb towns, villages, and cities: a serious accusation that has attracted suspiciously little attention and reeks of Cold War sensationalism. Now I’m starting to wonder: did the Soviets even make good on their presumable promise to help the Luftwaffe?
Here is what pg. 480 of the German Foreign Office papers says:
“The Chief of the General Staff of the Luftwaffe² would be very much obliged to the People’s Commissariat for Telecommunications if—for urgent navigational tests—the Minsk Broadcasting Station could, until further notice and commencing immediately, send out a continuous dash with intermittent call-sign ‘Richard Wilhelm 1.0.’ in the intervals between its programmes, and introduce the name ‘Minsk’ as often as possible in the course of its programme.”
I don’t know if it’s because of my limited expertise in this particular subject or if there is some context that I am overlooking, but judging from this report alone, it really doesn’t sound that scandalous. It sounds downright boring, actually. What do you think: is sending out a continuous dash and repeatedly introducing a name in navigational tests a cause for concern…? Can you feel yourself sweating at all…? Do you think that you’ll lose any sleep tonight…? Even just a little bit…? Be honest.
A funny thing, though:
“One evening a soldier came to the place where I lived and told us he’d heard on the radio that everybody who didn’t want to be under German occupation was welcome in the USSR: the borders were open for everybody.”²¹ As she has heard about the Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany, she says to herself: “Maybe there is a way. Maybe the USSR will save my life.” So together with some friends and her brother, she decides, as she puts it, to take up the “Russian offer.”²² They leave Warsaw on foot on 28 September. She writes: “The next day we were refugees in the care of the Russian Army in Bialystok. […] We were well treated and got some food and shelter.”²³
(Source.)
Shelter from the Holocaust
The first book-length study of the survival of Polish Jews in Stalin’s Soviet Union. About 1.5 million East European Jews—mostly from Poland, the Ukraine, and Russia—survived the Second World War behind the lines in the unoccupied parts of the Soviet…Google Books
Nice dig! I found a Russian source which says the same: hrono.ru/sobyt/1900war/1939pol…
So to clarify here, this is indeed used for navigation. At the time no GPS existed of course, so pilots had to rely on either radio signals or visual clues on the ground to tell them where they are. The radio signals, if the pilot could tell where they were coming from, would indeed help triangulate their location. Quite necessary, particularly in eastern Poland where German radio signals had a harder time reaching.
If the radio tower continually transmitted the requested callsign in between the other stuff, it would be easy to tell where the radio tower was. The Germans at this point expected the Soviets to help invade already as they had agreed upon. By mentioning "Minsk" a lot in the transmissions they effectively did the same thing, but a bit less overt. This allowed the Soviets to retain some element of surprise against the Poles.
On the 10th of September, the Nazis urged Molotov to begin the Soviet side of the invasion to uphold their end of the agreement, but Molotov held off due to the war with Japan. This gave them a convenient reason to wait until Polish resistance had been broken before going in. One week later, war was declared and the Soviets invaded.
World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR
Oh? What date did this "coordinated attack" take place, and how was the coordination handled? Presuming coordinating the movements of two different armies for such a large scale operation would have required a lot of back and forth signaling and planning, all of which would have become public record when the soviet archives were opened.
You sure you read the correct document?
The one I linked clearly cites soviet sources describing the USSR third reich collaborarion untill Barbarossa.
annas-archive.org/scidb/10.230…
I cannot find much about Soviet-German relations in it either.
Molotov, the Making of the Grand Alliance and the Second Front 1939-1942 - Anna’s Archive
Derek Watson Taylor and Francis Group; Informa UK (Taylor & Francis); Carfax Publishing Ltd.; Informa UK Limited (ISSN 0966-8136) Europe Asia Studies, #1, 54, pages 51-85, 2002 aprannas-archive.org
Uhhh Russia invaded unoccupied Poland at the same time as Nazi Germany.
While it's inaccurate to characterize them as "victims of communism" it's full blown anti-intellectualism, and astonishingly disrespectful to the polish people, to deny their suffering under Soviet occupation.
The Soviet Union largely stuck to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades earlier, and did so largely to prevent the Nazis from taking all of Poland. Genuinely, what should the Soviet Union have done instead? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?
Oh, it all makes sense now, here you are denouncing Palestine Action for breaking the law in order to slow down genocide. You're actually a fascist.
like this
geneva_convenience likes this.
Soviets took over 52% of Poland. Your argument is extremely fucking invalid.
Genuinely, what should the Soviet Union have done instead? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?
Jfc you are sociopath aren't you? False Dichotomy of the century! Heres a fuckin idea... NOT DO ALL THIS SHIT??
In total, the Soviets killed tens of thousands of Polish prisoners of war. Many of them, like General Józef Olszyna-Wilczyński, captured, interrogated and shot on 22 September, were killed during the 1939 campaign.[22][23] On 24 September, 1939, the Soviets killed 42 staff and patients of a Polish military hospital in the village of Grabowiec, near Zamość.[24] The Soviets also executed all the Polish officers they captured after the Battle of Szack, on 28 September.[25]by January 1940 the NKVD's campaign was also directed against potential allies, including Polish Communists and Socialists. Those arrested included Władysław Broniewski, Aleksander Wat, Tadeusz Peiper, Leopold Lewin, Anatol Stern, Teodor Parnicki, Marian Czuchnowski and many others.[28] The Soviet NKVD executed about 65,000 imprisoned Poles after being subjected to show trials.
[17]Approximately 100,000 Polish citizens were arrested during the two years of Soviet occupation.[31] The prisons soon got severely overcrowded, with all detainees accused of anti-Soviet activities.[17] The NKVD had to open dozens of ad-hoc prison sites in almost all towns of the region.[32] The wave of arrests and mock convictions contributed to the forced resettlement of large categories of people ("kulaks", Polish civil servants, forest workers, university professors, "osadniks") to the Gulag labour camps and exile settlements in remote areas of the Soviet Union.
No youre right. Their only option was to out Nazi the Nazis.
JFC humanity is cooked.
Most of the area the Soviets took are areas in modern Lithuania and Ukraine. Poland had annexed them in the Polish-Soviet War and the Polish-Lithuanian War earlier.
As for the second question, no, I'm not a sociopath, I'm genuinely asking you if you would have rather had the Nazis take all of Poland.
Oh, it all makes sense now, here you are denouncing Palestine Action for breaking the law in order to slow down genocide. You're actually a fascist.
I'm genuinely asking you if you would have rather had the Nazis take all of Poland.
Than youre a moron or an asshole because that is not a good faith question.
It's entirely good-faith, and you don't need to resort to insults to avoid it. What should the USSR have done? The west already rejected the USSR's pleas for an anti-Nazi pact, and the Nazis had already taken the vast majority of Poland.
Oh, it all makes sense now, here you are denouncing Palestine Action for breaking the law in order to slow down genocide. You're actually a fascist.
It's entirely good-faith
Sounds like something a sociopath would say after trying to convince someone war crimes were justifiable cuz of the existence of other war crimes.
You deserve to be insulted for what you're saying -Po polsku.
You quite literally claimed the Soviets "out-Nazi'd the Nazis." You aren't being a serious person, and you're hiding behind ableist insults. What about the Lithuanians and Ukrainians annexed by Poland?
Oh, it all makes sense now, here you are denouncing Palestine Action for breaking the law in order to slow down genocide. You're actually a fascist.
you're hiding behind ableist insults
You literally asked me if it would be better for nazis to commit war crimes than the soviets.
That's fucked up. You deserve to be called negative things for saying that.
No, I asked if you would have rather the Nazis take all of Poland. You're doing Holocaust trivialization right now, equating the Nazis with the communists in their treatment of Poland, and again dodging that the areas the Soviets invaded were largely areas Poland had invaded 2 decades prior. You're the meme.
Oh, it all makes sense now, here you are denouncing Palestine Action for breaking the law in order to slow down genocide. You're actually a fascist.
Soviets took over 52% of Poland. Your argument is extremely fucking invalid.
Genuinely, what should the Soviet Union have done instead? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?
Jfc you are sociopath aren't you? False Dichotomy of the century! Heres a fuckin idea... NOT DO ALL THIS SHIT??
In total, the Soviets killed tens of thousands of Polish prisoners of war. Many of them, like General Józef Olszyna-Wilczyński, captured, interrogated and shot on 22 September, were killed during the 1939 campaign.[22][23] On 24 September, 1939, the Soviets killed 42 staff and patients of a Polish military hospital in the village of Grabowiec, near Zamość.[24] The Soviets also executed all the Polish officers they captured after the Battle of Szack, on 28 September.[25]by January 1940 the NKVD's campaign was also directed against potential allies, including Polish Communists and Socialists. Those arrested included Władysław Broniewski, Aleksander Wat, Tadeusz Peiper, Leopold Lewin, Anatol Stern, Teodor Parnicki, Marian Czuchnowski and many others.[28] The Soviet NKVD executed about 65,000 imprisoned Poles after being subjected to show trials.
[17]Approximately 100,000 Polish citizens were arrested during the two years of Soviet occupation.[31] The prisons soon got severely overcrowded, with all detainees accused of anti-Soviet activities.[17] The NKVD had to open dozens of ad-hoc prison sites in almost all towns of the region.[32] The wave of arrests and mock convictions contributed to the forced resettlement of large categories of people ("kulaks", Polish civil servants, forest workers, university professors, "osadniks") to the Gulag labour camps and exile settlements in remote areas of the Soviet Union.
No youre right. Their only option was to out Nazi the Nazis.
JFC humanity is cooked.
Most of the area the Soviets took are areas in modern Lithuania and Ukraine. Poland had annexed them in the Polish-Soviet War and the Polish-Lithuanian War earlier.
As for the second question, no, I'm not a sociopath, I'm genuinely asking you if you would have rather had the Nazis take all of Poland.
Oh, it all makes sense now, here you are denouncing Palestine Action for breaking the law in order to slow down genocide. You're actually a fascist.
Their only option was to out Nazi the Nazis.
Thats pretty much exactly what you said
No youre right. Their only option was to out Nazi the Nazis.
Y'all are doing a great job exampling Americans' poor reading comprehension.
Clearly I'm being facetious... if you passed highschool english.
ugh no wonder people think communism/socialism are categorially bad. You guys are insufferable.
- Assuming everyone pointing out that you were doing Holocaust trivialization is USian is chauvanistic, same with insinuating others must not've finished highschool English.
- You're doing a great job exampling Canadian love for Nazis.
Video Shows Canadian Parliament Giving Standing Ovation to Ex-Waffen SS Fighter?
A video shared in late September 2023 showed Canadian Parliament giving a standing ovation to an ex-Waffen SS (Nazi) fighter.Aleksandra Wrona (Snopes.com)
You guys are snipping apart and mis-quoting my comments like its your first day seeing punctuation.
You're doing a great job exampling Canadian love for Nazis.
We narrowly avoided our own MAGA government. We have a huge ass right wing nazi problem... and "Death to Canada" is a fucking goldmine for them publicity wise.
No, we are reading your comments as we see them. You've continued to equate the communists with the Nazis, despite the literal Holocaust.
Well than you either have poor reading comprehension or are so terminally online that you cannot take things at face value without inserting your own hyperbole.
The death to Canada thing is another topic. I don't know if I accidentally cross-mentioned it or if you just read my profile. But it has nothing to do with my comment on this meme.
TLDR: Not only nazis were harmed by the soviet invasion of Poland. That's all I said. that's all I'm saying. If you can't accept that than that's on you.
you're embodying the meme.
You guys are accusing me of Hollocaust minimalism for acknowledging that non-nazi polish people were hurt by the soviet invasions.
WHAT THE FUCK?
No, we are calling out your Holocaust trivialization because you do it when you say shit like this:
You literally asked me if it would be better for nazis to commit war crimes than the soviets.That's fucked up. You deserve to be called negative things for saying that.
You're equating the Holocaust with excesses on the Soviet side.
Plus, you've never apologized for your ableism, misgendering, etc.
No I'm not and no amount of insisting otherwise or downvoting will change that.
Plus, you've never apologized for your ableism, misgendering, etc.
That's because you don't deserve one.
When you call what the Soviets and Nazis did both "war crimes" and paint them as equivalent, it directly implies a similar quantity and quality, when that's so far removed from the truth that it's genuine Holocaust trivialization.
Secondly, defending your misgendering and ableism is just proving everyone here correct.
a) not a seppo
b) your facetiousness was rather obviously
Their only option was to out Nazi the Nazis.
as in
they didn't have to be worse than the nazis but they were
which is holocaust trivialization
This is the meme my top comment is replying to:
lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/a2b0fa6c…
This is my statement about that meme:
Not only nazis were harmed by the soviet invasion of Poland. That's all I said. that's all I'm saying. If you can't accept that than that's on you.
It's not my fault you sea lioning winners found dumb shit to justify misrepresenting what I'm saying.
Genuinely, what should the Soviet Union have done instead? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?
Start with not making a pact with Nazis to divide Europe imo. That's one part that was enabling the Nazi expansion.
Them: “so what should they have done?”
You: “Well I’ll tell you what they shouldn’t have done!”
So, in short, you can’t actually answer the question.
I'm not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse or joking but deciding not to do something is an act in itself. You asked what they should have done, they should've decided against pact with Nazi Germany. That's the start. Then prepare for all that entails.
We know they chose to make a pact with the Nazis and to divide Poland, they chose to invade the parts the Nazis left to them, they decided on all of these actions. They weren't some inevitable laws of nature bound to happen and impossible to avoid
"I shot a man, what should I have done?"
"Well not shoot him"
"yOu haVen'T anSweRed thE quEstion"
lol
What arguments
If you don't even know what the arguments are then I don't think it makes sense to continue on this particular thread
overwritten insults
What is this overwritten insult you keep referring to
"So what should they have done??"
"Don't make a pact with them prepare for war"
You:
- YouTube
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.www.youtube.com
So you're still just arguing for them to deliberately put themselves in a worse position even though you have benefit of hindsight to know that would have likely resulted in a Nazi victory on the eastern front.
Sounds like you just wanted the Nazis to win
Haha, what a crazy way of thinking.
"Don't eat your own shit!"
"Well, what should I do instead of eating my own shit?! 😕"
You don't have to have formal pact or alliance in place to pledge to declare war in case of another country is invaded. You don't have to have an agreement in place to share intelligence to them, such as the secret protocols or about the negotiations, etc etc. They could've done more.
Goebbels even tried to blame one such massacre on the Red Army, Katyn, despite the spent ammunition clearly being marked as produced by Nazi Germany in 1941.
Oof. Soviet Union already admitted to Katyn massacre. Time to let this conspiracy theory go.
So your point is that the Soviet Union should have fought the Nazis there and then, without formalizing alliance with the west who made it clear that they wished the Nazis and Soviets would kill each other? You would have had the Soviets commit suicide for Poland, rather than trying to close their industrial gap with the Nazis as much as possible and align with the west? This is incredibly silly.
As for Katyn, it's more intentional mistranslation, there was admittance of prisoner transport. None of this explains why the execution method was the exact same as the Nazis, in Nazi territory, with Nazi bullets manufactured during 1941.
I'm saying they could've threatened to. USSR, France, UK all declaring war at the same time because of the invasion would've been a better deterrent than just France and UK, especially since it would be war on both sides.
As for Katyn, it’s more intentional mistranslation, there was admittance of prisoner transport. None of this explains why the execution method was the exact same as the Nazis, in Nazi territory, with Nazi bullets manufactured during 1941.
archive.government.ru/eng/docs…
latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-19…
theguardian.com/world/2010/nov…
It's been admitted to many times. It's no error.
Russian parliament admits guilt over Polish massacre
Symbolic acknowledgment of culpability over Katyn murders in 1940 signals Russia's willingness to face up to its pastTom Parfitt (The Guardian)
This is incredibly silly. The Soviet Union had no strong alliance with western countries, even after Britain and France declared war they did jack shit other than a naval blockade. After the Soviets went into Poland, Britain finally extended diplomatic talks of an alliance. The Soviet Union was rapidly industrializing, but was behind Nazi Germany and needed firm acknowledgement of a real alliance.
As for Katyn, the bullets were Nazi-produced in 1941, the grave was "found" by Nazis, the rope used was German produced, the execution method was the same as the Nazis, and Goebbels was the one who started the story. The anti-communist government in Russia "admitted" to doing it, but material evidence directly points to the Nazis doing so.
I mean USSR could've backed away from actually declaring the war or waited to see what the West does. That is if Germany would've risked attacking Poland then. We don't know because that's not what USSR ended up doing.
As for Katyn, the bullets were Nazi-produced in 1941, the grave was “found” by Nazis, the rope used was German produced, the execution method was the same as the Nazis, and Goebbels was the one who started the story. The anti-communist government in Russia “admitted” to doing it, but material evidence directly points to the Nazis doing so.
This is all part of a conspiracy theory not taken seriously by the actual field of researchers or the governments of the relevant countries. I don't think it will be very fruitful to continue on into conspiracy theory zone here.
So you think the Soviets should've let the Nazis take Poland, got it. Guess you think the Holocaust wasn't that bad after all? I would hope not, but the direct consequence of the Soviets waiting any longer than they did (17 days, Britain and France declared war after 2 but did jack shit) would be more Holocaust.
As for Katyn, no, this isn't conspiracy theory. The basic facts of the execution method being the same, Goebbels reporting on it, and the materials being Nazi-made all point to Nazi involvement. Anti-communist organizations and governments agreeing with Goebbels despite the evidence doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory:
“Of 225 shells found in this grave, 205 are the German 1941 “Hasag” type, 17 are the German 1941 “Dürlach” type, 2 are of the unmarked 1930s Soviet type; and one is marked “B 1906.” Hence 98.67% of the shells are of 1941 German manufacture.”
The roots of tying the Soviets to Katyn lie in trying to push Holocaust trivialization by making the Soviets out to be as "bad as the Nazis," thereby uplifting the Nazis and demonizing the Soviets.
So you think the Soviets should’ve let the Nazis take Poland, got it.
I've been arguing for means to prevent invasion (from either side) from the beginning.
As for Katyn, no, this isn’t conspiracy theory.
I mean according to the field of researchers, the relevant governments (even the one responsible for it), it very much is. USSR admitted to it, the legal successor state admitted to it, lot of the damning documents have been declassified... It's dead, Jim.
Tbh it would be a conspiracy theory in either case since you think there's a conspiracy to hide the truth.
You list no means that the Soviets didn't already try. You're effectively wishing for magic.
Back to Katyn, you have no explanation for why the bullets were German and produced in 1941, why the rope was German, the method Nazi, and the originator of the story Goebbels. There's mountains of evidence against the documents listed as "proof" of Soviet guilt:
The mistakes and inconsistencies in this letter are many. To start, the letter is “Top Secret”. Standard procedure for a “Top Secret” letter were to write on the letter the name of the person who typed it, the names of all the persons who have seen the document, the names of all persons to whom this letter is to be sent, the number of copies made of this letter, the carbon paper used to make a copy of it and finally the tape of the typewriter used to make this paper. For the “Beria document”, none of these exist. Without these precautions, it is not a “Top Secret” letter. The forger of this document either was not aware of the requirements of a “Top Secret” paper, or such requirements could not be forged by them. Either way, this paper immediately looses its value, and furthermore shows it is a forgery.But the mistakes do not stop here. The signatures of the members of the Politburo go against the form. In this letter, 4 members of the Politburo have simply signed their names. By this act, they have rejected the request of Beria. You see, if the members of the Politburo agreed to send out an order or to carry out a request, it was necessary for them to sign the document, and to write next to their signatures “agreed” or “after”. In order for the request to be agreed and the order to be sent out, the members had to express their agreement to the request or their agreement to an order being sent. If they simply signed the paper, it meant that the members had read the document, but had not agreed to it and had not sent out any orders. The forger was obviously not aware of this and has made the mistake. Even if this request is authentic, which it is not, it was not accepted by the Politburo.
On the first page of the document, along with the four signatures of Stalin, Molotov, Mikoyan and Voroshilov, the forger added the names of Kaganovich and Kalinin underneath these. What the forger was not aware of, is that both Kaganovich and Kalinin were absent from the 13th Session of the Politburo in March 1940. They could not have placed their signatures on this document.
Skip to the "forgeries" section.
Katyn
GERMANS COMMITTED THE KATYN FOREST MASSACRE All the evidence I secured showed that the Polish group in London was more interested in doing something against Russia than in doing anything for Poland…The Espresso Stalinist
Soviets didn't "try" to threaten to declare war if Poland was invaded. The whole thing is about what could've been if they had taken that step instead of what they ended up doing.
Back to Katyn
No.
espressostalinist.com/the-real…
Hah
Katyn
GERMANS COMMITTED THE KATYN FOREST MASSACRE All the evidence I secured showed that the Polish group in London was more interested in doing something against Russia than in doing anything for Poland…The Espresso Stalinist
Gotcha, the Soviets should have risked entering a war they weren't certain they could win and weren't certain the west wouldn't flip on them. In other words, you wish they had committed suicide for Poland.
As for Katyn, it's the same source that you read earlier, it's Grover Furr's blog. Grover Furr often makes poor arguments, but the historical evidence he presents is valid. You can't explain the factual discrepancies in the documents, the eyewitness accounts stating that the Nazis did it, nor the German ammunition from 1941, nor the German produced rope, nor the Nazi execution methods, nor why you're agreeing with Goebbels, who first created the story and whose account the anti-communist governments agree with. In absence of a response, you just say "No" and "Hah."
You say gotcha a lot but I'm sorry to say you haven't gotcha it a lot. I said they could've threatened it to use as deterrent. It never got that far though, threat or actual declaration because of Poland. My meaning and your gotcha are often very different.
As for Katyn
You do keep trying but like said, not interested in this conspiracy theory.
- If they threatened war, they would have been attacked. They knew an attack was coming, and giving the Nazis a cause for war could have been used by the west to side with the Nazis. This was not without evidence.
Harry Truman later, 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.
- Are you calling the mountains of evidence the Nazis did it falsified, or do you just make it a habit to take Goebbels at his word?
If they threatened war, they would have been attacked.
We don't know that, nor if the attack on Poland would've gone ahead with the threat from both sides. That's why it would've been a gamble. Then again, so was making a deal with them, Germany might have continued on the attack once both sides met in Poland.
The USSR tried extremely hard to form a unified opposition to the Nazis, and the Western powers responded by signing pacts with the Nazis. As a result, the USSR was left with the choice to also sign a pact to buy time and keep the Nazis out of some of Eastern Europe for a time, or to let them have Eastern Europe and then have to fight a war from a worse position with less preparation.
They literally did choose the option that allowed them to put up the strongest opposition possible. If they had done what you wanted, the Nazis would have won the Eastern front.
We don’t know when Nazis would’ve invaded USSR.
But they would have invaded, probably sooner, so just letting them have all of Eastern Europe in advance would have resulted in the Nazis winning the Eastern front.
They still had Western Allies to deal with.
Which was true when they invaded them historically too, so I'm not sure what your point was.
The pact gave breathing room to USSR but it also pointed them towards West.
The USSR already did the overwhelming amount of the work in defeating the Nazis, it's pretty file to say they should have let themselves get annihilated so the West could do even less.
I’m not sure why people think it’s either or when I’ve been very clearly saying that neither should’ve been making the deals.
Because what you think they "should" have done is completely fucking irrelevant to the objective stone fact that the western allies did make those deals. That was the material reality the USSR had to content with, not your fantasy world that you keep bringing up despite the fact that no-one asked, presumably just to waste time. Shut the fuck up about what you think the western allies "should" have done: we are talking about the actual world.
I’d say that’s all around pretty objectionable.
So basically your argument is that 100 million lives aren't valuable enough to be pragmatic about
I mean they did make those deals, Soviet Union made the deals, I think it was all shit.
So basically your argument is that 100 million lives aren’t valuable enough to be pragmatic about
Pragmatism from all sides when dealing with Nazis is what caused the situation to get that far tbqh
I mean they did make those deals, Soviet Union made the deals, I think it was all shit.
How many times do I have to tell you that nobody asked, and nobody cares, before you stop repeating this? Shut the fuck up about what you think the western allies “should” have done: we are talking about the actual world.
Pragmatism from all sides when dealing with Nazis is what caused the situation to get that far tbqh
Nonsense
Given that you've been reduced to knowingly lying and deliberately pretending you can't be coherent, yes, I think it has.
It's definitely further entrenched my experience that every time I've had this discussion with someone, they always end up being a proudly dishonest crypto-Nazi
We don't know when Nazis would've invaded USSR.
I was trying to say that it was evidently "as soon as possible".
I meant they agreed to divide Poland's area according to the lines mentioned "if something happened to it (heh)". So stopping the attack and handing over extra parts are all according to keikaku.
World War II certainly wasn’t “done” afterwards
No I meant dividing Poland part from the agreement.
- Why did the Soviets move in to Poland?
- Why not fully agree to joint-invasion in a secret section of the pact?
You have no answers for this, again, you seem to be arguing that the Nazis should have been allowed to extend the Holocaust to all of Poland, including the areas Poland annexxed from Lithuania and Ukraine.
- No, lmao. The Soviets had little economic incentive to invade, their economy was a planned one and not one that relied on colonization like the Nazis. Get a better answer.
- They didn't agree to an invasion in the pact, that's why.
But invade they did and got their part. As agreed.
Why not fully agree to joint-invasion in a secret section of the pact?They didn’t agree to an invasion in the pact, that’s why.
It doesn't really answer the question of what benefit there would've been to "fully agree to joint-invasion" when they got everything they wanted to out of the pact with the postponed invasion
There was no agreement to invade or divide Europe.
No agreement to divide Europe..?
Secret protocol
- In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
- In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula, and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.
- With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares; its complete political disinterestedness in these areas.
Also this treaty: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E…
There was no agreement to invade or divide Europe.
It's literally spelling out how they're dividing Europe lol
They agreed to spheres of influence.
Yes that's what the secret protocol is about, it spells it out very clearly
You're implying
- That the Soviets intended on invading Europe, and having the pact last
- That the Soviets wanted to invade.
Neither is backed up by the facts at hand.
They didn't, though. They went to war to stop the Nazis, the only time it came into use was when the Nazis invaded Poland and the soviets prevented them from taking all of Poland.
Also, there's no need to reply on both threads.
The dividing into speheres of influence and subsequent actions in those spheres all happened. Not just Poland but elsewhere. You're more arguing about justification, which is different matter.
Also, there’s no need to reply on both threads.
Reply to just one of these next and we'll continue on that thread. Up to you which
Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941 : Documents from the German Foreign Office
German Diplomatic Papers dealing with relations with the Soviet Union during the period at the beginning of the Second World War. Contains the Nazi-Soviet Non-agression Pact.avalon.law.yale.edu
If this isn't a trollpost and your not getting paid for it, then I'm just baffled on how wrong someone can be regarding generic historical facts. Aside from the idea itself, that it is somehow normal and even commendable to assist foreign states against enemies without them requesting it, all the while criticizing the US for similar actions, your opinion ignores the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop secret pact.
And for argument's sake, let's just pretend, that Soviets were of kind heart and mind and truly wanted to help and protect the Polish people from the horrifing Nazis they so clearly detested. Then why did they host a joint parade in Brest-Litovsk after having conquered Poland?? Or better yet, why did they mercilessly execute 20 000 officers in the woods of Katyn? Not to mention the fact that the Warsaw Uprising failed because the Soviets deliberatly waited for all future dissidents to be killed off, before "liberating" it.
Wasn't there also a really egregious part where they were estimating how many children the average young adult woman had in Tsarist Russia vs the USSR, and because the birth rates were lower in the USSR, they counted the supposed population deficit as victims?
Gonna make like a goose and ask them why women in the USSR had lower birth rates. Couldn't be access to contraception/abortion, sex and family planning education, equal rights as men, or better career options, right?
Since we're starting this debate again, I do wish to ask the people that think the Soviets shouldn't have gone into Poland: what should the Soviets have done?
With benefit of hindsight and access to whatever formerly-secret documents, what is the best course of action for them?
should the Soviets have done?
Not committed war crimes? Amazing that Cowbee@lemmy.ml & Edie@lemmy.ml can't wrap their head around war crimes being bad regardless of who commits them.
With benefit of hindsight and access to whatever formerly-secret documents, what is the best course of action for them?
I'm not going to armchair debate about human atrocities. Thats fucked up.
You seem to believe that the Soviets should,
Where did I say or indicate that?
I am not asking you.
Same bro. Dunno why the fuck you guys are trying to make me say that Soviets invading and killing eveyrone was better than the nazi's invading and killin everyone. Thats fucked up.
Well, you said specifically (only said) they shouldn't have committed war crimes, which to some extent indicates that they should have gone into Poland. If you had a problem with them going into Poland, you should have talked about that and not brought up a different thing.
Why are you talking to me if you don't want to? You can just... not.
Also I am not your bro.
Also please stop deleting your comments.
1) This is a meme subreddit. Not a history subreddit. So I'm not obligated to engage in deep 20th century debates.
So if you want context to my statements look at the meme and read my top comment. I'm pushing back against the notion that only "guilty nazis" were hurt by the soviets. And I provided evidence.
I am fully justified in ripping on anyone who tries to misrepresent what I said.
2)
Why are you talking to me if you don't want to? You can just... not.
I'm throwing you words back at you. You said "I'm not asking first".
3)
Also I am not your bro.
And I'm not your buddy.
4)
Also please stop deleting your comments.
No.
Sometimes I have to edit things for clarity so I repost them.
I’m pushing back against the notion that only “guilty nazis” were hurt by the soviets.
Ok... And I never said that?
You seem to believe that the Soviets should,
Where did I say or indicate that?
I am not asking you.
Same bro. Dunno why the fuck you guys are trying to make me say that Soviets invading and killing eveyrone was better than the nazi's invading and killin everyone. Thats fucked up.
like this
geneva_convenience likes this.
I mean they could've not made a pact with Nazi Germany to jointly divide Eastern Europe. Like start from that.
And before anyone mentions, that includes others who made pacts with them too.
Them: "so what should they have done?"
You: "Well I'll tell you what they shouldn't have done!"
So, in short, you can't actually answer the question.
Refuse to enable Nazi expansion, prepare for war, try to make allies. So carry on before they chose to make a pact. Making that pact with Nazis wasn't some inevitable law of nature they just had to do. You can always resist.
There's always a reason for all kinds of actions but it's just an attempt to avoid moral scrutiny to present the situation as inevitable. There were other options, they chose not to do those but rather made a pact. Agree or disagree with the decision from moral or some realpolitik sense, doesn't matter. Presenting it as inevitable is avoidance.
They did prepare for war with the Nazis, and the pact was part of that. So I take it then your answer is that they shouldn't have prepared as much for the war with the Nazis.
Given that the level of preparedness they did manage was still only barely enough to win, you answer is ultimately that you wanted the USSR to take a course of action that would have allowed the Nazis to win the Eastern Front.
Which is ultimately always what it comes down; resentment that the Soviets won.
Ok.
The USSR isn't obligated to sabotage it's own existence because some random unborn Finish person "would've preferred to see it"
Not to mention the UK and Frances commitment turned out to be extremely token, a fact that came as zero suprise to the USSR
Ok.
If you're just going to be literally incoherent then you might as well fuck off
Not sure if we are supposed to agree with everything our countries have historically done.
The irony of an anticommunist saying this is palpable.
these sort of deals enables Nazis to conquer much of Europe.
Stalin offered a million men to France and the UK to stop the nazis. They refused.
Meanwhile, your country was literally in the Axis in WW2, and helped the nazis carry out their atrocities.
Meanwhile, your country was literally in the Axis in WW2, and helped the nazis carry out their atrocities.
Am I personally guilty of what happened in my country's the past or how is that relevant?
Damn, not a fan of people bringing up completely irrelevant points about what other countries should have done?
Crazy. Sure would be embarrassing if that was something you constantly did yourself.
what should the Soviets have done?
shouldve stayed put and get exterminated, it is unforgivable that they had agency and made a strategic appeasements with Germany 😔 however it was perfectly ok for the rest of europe powers to do it! 🤓
I see you're lucky enough not to be familiar with the Victims of Communism Foundation. This is pretty standard for them.
They're also extremely successfully at mainstreaming these kind of views: they're often cited by "respectable" western media like BBC, are used by Wikipedia, and are the original and only source for a lot of the kind of scandalous accusations against China that liberals will call you a tankie if you don't believe
Surprised there are still comments denouncing it on X. Guess Grok isn't as good at censoring wokism as Elon claims.
Also, I like this picture, gonna post it here in case it gets removed:
Often hilarious how the history is biased by some collectives. Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done.
After this the cold war, where secret US papers were filtred, specifying locations in Europe where they were going to use nuclear bombs to stop an alleged Russian invasion.
Cuba crisis, it causes almost a WWIII, because evil Russia wanted to park there nuclear missiles. What is never mentioned, was,that it was an answer to the US nuclear missiles that were parked long before in Turkey, pointing to Russia. The escalation was avoided by an Rusian commander, while the US already had the finger on the red button.
Yes, certainly communism is really bad and the US the good boys which always save the world, even by nuke civilians in two cities, training and arm jihadists and Talibans, destroying democracies supporting dictators, like the September 11 with over 3000 victims, in 1973, when the CIA organized and supported an military coup by Pinochet to eliminate Allende.
Most of the currend Wars in the world and dictatorships are direct or indirect caused by the work of our good US boys. Thank you America, GFY
Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done
The Soviet Union (and I say that to emphasize that it was not simply Russia) and other Allies also played an important role in the Pacific Theatre too once they had some breathing space. I suppose the US glorify it so aggressively because it's one of the few major wars they were on the winning side of, but when they rapidly promoted former Nazis to high political positions and launched Operation Gladio, one can't help but realize their troops were only sent there to stop those Nazis, not Nazism.
And they intervened in Europe not to stop the nazis but the Soviets from taking it all, which would've happened in no time if they didn't meet the 'allieds' in Berlin.
I wonder who they were allied with BTW, since they saved 10000's of nazis from the Soviets and evacuated them, or in Italy let them surrender and enabled them to go fight the Soviets.
All of the nazis in the west got fully rehabilitated despite the handful of death penalties in the Nuremberg showtrials.
Oh, I wouldn't say "freed", more like "under new management" 😅
Katyn gets pinned on the Soviets because Goebbels reported on it and it became a useful story, but the execution method was distinctly Nazi, ie killing men, women, and children from behind into mass graves. The ammunition was German-produced in 1941, and the rope used to bind the hands of the victims was German made.
The Soviets absolutely killed Polish soldiers, but the character of their involvement was not anywhere close to what the Nazis reported.
The Poles asked for their troops back when they were forming a USSR-based army and were told that thousands had mysteriously escaped. Then when asked for an official investigation, the Soviets broke ties with the Polish government in exile and made their own.
The Soviets themselves later admitted it was the NKVD. Are you defending the USSR from its own slander?
You have no explanation for why the bullets were German and produced in 1941, why the rope was German, the method Nazi, and the originator of the story Goebbels. There's mountains of evidence against the documents listed as "proof" of Soviet guilt:
The mistakes and inconsistencies in this letter are many. To start, the letter is “Top Secret”. Standard procedure for a “Top Secret” letter were to write on the letter the name of the person who typed it, the names of all the persons who have seen the document, the names of all persons to whom this letter is to be sent, the number of copies made of this letter, the carbon paper used to make a copy of it and finally the tape of the typewriter used to make this paper. For the “Beria document”, none of these exist. Without these precautions, it is not a “Top Secret” letter. The forger of this document either was not aware of the requirements of a “Top Secret” paper, or such requirements could not be forged by them. Either way, this paper immediately looses its value, and furthermore shows it is a forgery.But the mistakes do not stop here. The signatures of the members of the Politburo go against the form. In this letter, 4 members of the Politburo have simply signed their names. By this act, they have rejected the request of Beria. You see, if the members of the Politburo agreed to send out an order or to carry out a request, it was necessary for them to sign the document, and to write next to their signatures “agreed” or “after”. In order for the request to be agreed and the order to be sent out, the members had to express their agreement to the request or their agreement to an order being sent. If they simply signed the paper, it meant that the members had read the document, but had not agreed to it and had not sent out any orders. The forger was obviously not aware of this and has made the mistake. Even if this request is authentic, which it is not, it was not accepted by the Politburo.
On the first page of the document, along with the four signatures of Stalin, Molotov, Mikoyan and Voroshilov, the forger added the names of Kaganovich and Kalinin underneath these. What the forger was not aware of, is that both Kaganovich and Kalinin were absent from the 13th Session of the Politburo in March 1940. They could not have placed their signatures on this document.
Skip to the "forgeries" section.
Katyn
GERMANS COMMITTED THE KATYN FOREST MASSACRE All the evidence I secured showed that the Polish group in London was more interested in doing something against Russia than in doing anything for Poland…The Espresso Stalinist
Per our other conversation, the Soviets were trading for German finished goods. Why would you not expect to find German goods here??
And again, the Soviets themselves admitted to it. Why are you even discussing forgeries?
The ammunition was dated at 1941. Further, Soviet weaponry fired entirely different cartridges.
As for the Soviets "admitting it," it was the anti-communist factions that produced the "evidence," and said evidence directly contains serious flaws that other official documentation did not have. The origin of the story is with Goebbels. The post-Stalin CPSU was filled with those seeking to undermine the Soviet Union for political gain, like Khrushchev and Gorbachev, and we also have evidence that Soviet officials falsified documents for political gain.
German-USSR trade was still ongoing in 1941. As part of that trade they did gain access to samples of German artillery, tanks and more. German companies were also known to export arms (in violation of the Versailles treaty) well before WWII. And even if you deny that, there were dozens of countries manufacturing arms and ammo in the German caliber because, get this, German guns were well designed!
Dismissing all evidence that could put Soviets in a bad light, even when it's internal. Truly you are a Communist at heart.
So let's put all that aside: capturing thousands of POWs and having them end up massacred in a ditch is acceptable? There's no fault attributable to them for having this happen to people in their control and under their protection?
In order for the Soviets to have been guilty, it would have had to happen around 1939-1940. 1940 is the date Goebbels reported, and is accepted by those pinning it on the Soviets, because that would be when the Soviets most plausibly could have done it. Further, again, the Soviet weaponry did not fire German ammunition. The evidence in favor of the Nazis committing the Katyn Massacre are staggering, and the evidence provided by the anti-communist Yeltsin regime are flimsy at best.
Either way, putting it all aside, the Soviets did kill Polish soldiers that resisted them and/or cooperated with the Nazis, Slovak Republic, and OUN. They did not slaughter civilians like the Nazis did, certainly not children. There's absolutely fault to be found in excess, but if we just accept Geobbels' word for everything then that excess becomes parody and we remove ourselves from genuine analysis.
1940 is the date Goebbels reported
All of these were verified by the Red Cross and there are stacks of documents giving evidence and testimony to the contrary. But yes, I suppose if you throw out everything you don't like then any argument will get flimsy. Certainly we don't get "genuine analysis" as you put it.
Further, again, the Soviet weaponry did not fire German ammunition.
The NKVD was a police force, they were under no compulsion to use military issue weapons. There are other documented instances of them using foreign weapons, it's not out of the ordinary.
This whole weapon discussion is circumstantial evidence at best, there are plenty of ways it could have happened. And of course Goebbels was eager to report it, it's very well documented in his own records that he was excited about the find and the bad PR it would give the Soviets. The fact that you're dismissing the general consensus that the international community has come to after decades of investigation just to maintain your own narrative is pretty disappointing.
America rightly draws criticism for their strong arm enforcement of "democratic values" through occupation, but you see no parallel to the USSR enforcing "Soviet values" through the same occupation strategy. You've got some massive blinders on.
So the evidence corroborating Goebbels supports the 1940 idea, despite Nazi ammunition dating 1941 was found, along with German rope, Nazi execution modus operandi, eyewitness reports corroborating that it was the Nazis that did it, and there's tons of discrepancies from the anti-communist Yeltsin-regime released documents. Sounds like more proof that the Nazis did it. All this is is you taking a declarative stance that you trust the Nazis and the Red Scare-era west against modern historical investigation.
As for the soviets, they tended towards 2 directions: 1, national sovereignty and self-determination, as well as 2, support for socialist movements. They weren't imperialist like the US is, so they didn't stand to gain from the same economic compulsions that drive the US to plunder the global south.
No worries! And yea, I know we don't agree 100%, but I do think we overall agree more than disagree, at least from what I can tell. Personally, I'm often posting when my ADHD is pushing me away from responsibilities like work, chores, etc so it isn't always the best for me 🫠
Reached out to finally get organized IRL though, so I managed to overcome my procrastination and social anxiety enough for that!
But I do think we overall more agree than disagree
Precisely; well put
Also I can relate somewhat with the impulses and procrastination (tho it's ASD for me LOL), but especially the anxiety and am glad you are able to work on improving in that regard 😀
Thanks! And from what I've gathered from my ASD friends, there's a lot in common between ASD and ADHD. They aren't the same, of course, and AuDHD is its own thing, but I've been able to relate especially well with those in my life with ASD ever since I was a kiddo.
Have a good one!
If you have an open mind and have ~3 minutes, I can recommend this short clip from a Michael Parenti lecture
Further "reading" if you're interested:
- YouTube
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.www.youtube.com
Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes
books.google.com/books?id=unFX…
The new center was soon embroiled in a scandal: in October 2008 the journal Respect published a text stigmatizing the celebrated writer Milan Kundera for having ‘given’ a young student, Miroslav Dvořáček, to the Communist police in 1950. In fact, the accusation was organized by an institute employee, Adam Hradilek, a relative of Dvořáček.¹⁵From that moment forward, the center and those running it have been the target of ever more incisive criticism. Jiří Pehe, former advisor to President Vaclav Havel and current director of the New York University in Prague, commented: ‘From its inception this Institute was occupied by people with a Jacobin style of managing history.’ His next remark leaves no room for doubt: ‘The [Institute’s] board reflects the political reality of who is in power.’¹⁶
Oops!
Investigation of Communist Crimes and the Memory of the Romanian Exile
ceeol.com/search/article-detai…
Archaeology […] was annexed to a political process, that of the official condemnation of communism, its role being to provide new incriminating evidence to confirm and supplement already known data about the communist repression (assembled from archive documents, testimonies of former political prisoners, eyewitnesses, local memory, etc.).Interestingly, none of the archaeological texts regarding the exhumations has been published in academic journals or volumes; they have been published on the website of the IICCR/IICCMER and, most of them, in the journal of the Foundation Memoria (established in 1990 by a former political prisoner), suggestively titled Memory. Journal of Arrested Thought (in Romanian), a journal with an anti-communist, Eurocentrist and Christian discourse.
Huh, how strange. Could it be…
IICCR, subordinate to the Romanian government and coordinated by the prime minister
Wow! The capitalist governments facilitating the Nakba are the same ones funding these hopelessly corrupt anticommie think tanks?
I’m so surprised!
History, Memory and Politics in Central and Eastern Europe
Fourteen specialists of Central and Eastern European politics explore memory policies and politics by examining how and why contested memories are constantly reactivated in the former Soviet bloc.Google Books
Victim mentality is on the rise, for two reasons. Firstly people are being led to believe their special and entitled to success without work, and secondly because success has become unattainable even with work.
I think this may have something to do with the rise in Nazism in capitalist countries.
"Fascism is capitalism in decay"
-- IDK
Edit: I think it's also the reactionary response capitalists have to left wing momentum in the population. Hitler leveraged the threat of communism to gain power and the first people he sent to camps were German communists. Sound familiar with this whole woke thing? When a population is stressed they will generally lean either far left or right and the right wing is in power and want to suppress the left wing.
While I agree that when there's a push for change by the left, the elite will redirect it towards the right to save themselves, I don't think that's what's happening here. There isn't an effective push for change on the left for them to fight.
The rise of Trump among young voters was driven in part by the failure of the Democrats to offer a credible alternative (same in the UK), the global rise in the far-right in general (even in countries where they have no credible path to power, like Germany or Australia) is due to the unique psychology our environment has created for this generation.
In case people aren't aware, the Victims of Communism foundation is a US government organization that was set up by an act of congress in 1993.
Congress also passed a bill funding them to design highschool curriculum, called the "crucial communism teaching act".
Congress Revives Cold War Tactics with New Anti-Communism School Curriculum
Although sponsored by Republicans, the new Crucial Communism Teaching Act bill enjoys widespread support from Democrats. Focused on China, Venezuela, Cuba and other targets of US empire, critics warn it will be used to promote war in public schools.Alan Macleod (MintPress News)
Just reminded me of a history teacher who, when teaching the Containment policy, showed us a jar with a slip of paper contained within, which read "COMMUNISM". Displayed prominently in the classroom thereafter.
Didn't work on me. When my assigned seat changed such that the jar and I were out of view of the teacher while at the board, I popped the lid off in front of everyone.
Lol
My high school history class stopped the tankman video right before the tank tried to move out of the way and said "this is the only footage to escape the oppressive regime. We don't know what happened to tank man but we assume he was run over"
When I finally saw the full video I thought it was fake
Why is it so smoky in Colorado? Wildfires burning on western slope affecting state
Why is it so smoky in Colorado? Wildfires burning on western slope affecting state
More than 30,000 acres in northwest Colorado have been destroyed by the Lee and Elk fires since Aug. 2. See the updates., Fort Collins Coloradoan (Fort Collins Coloradoan)
Trump wanted a US-made iPhone. Apple gave him a gold statue.
Trump wanted a US-made iPhone. Apple gave him a gold statue.
Trump’s chip tariffs won’t hit Apple despite no plans for a US-made iPhone.Ashley Belanger (Ars Technica)
like this
adhocfungus e Rozaŭtuno like this.
Does Google REALLY think I'm just going to turn the Spyware back on?
Google keeps asking about turning on my location timeline, trying to push for me to turn ON Ad tracking.
Are they stupid? If I'm the type of person who went out of his way to turn this crap off ...do they really think saying "Your in Control" is going to encourage me to turn this s*** back on?
like this
Endymion_Mallorn, Oofnik, adhocfungus e Rozaŭtuno like this.
Not fake setting? lmao
We do not control the software. It fails to include a libre software licence text file.
like this
sunzu2 likes this.
I think they know that most people will eventually give in (or accidentally say yes) if they have to close a notification every time they want to do something.
Like you, I aim not to be "most people."
Youe feelings are valid and we should be pushing for proepr regulation.
However, let's be real it isn't happening. This is just one aspect of the class war. Most people are unwilling to go into proepr opposition ie stop using their slop services. They will keep doing this.
It is up to you how much abuse you will accept before taking direct action to punish the parasite.
I am gonna come off as a dick here but OP is stupid enough to have google anything on their most personal of devices
I don't even like YouTube on my TV but suffer it for access.
Using a Google phone as a normie is like being a young actress and doing an audition with Weinstein
I'm gonna come off as a dick here but sunzu2 is stupid enough to have YouTube on their TV? At that point might as well just buy a pixel.
(Maybe a polite link to ways to degoogle a phone would be more productive and make you less of a dick.)
like this
sunzu2 likes this.
like this
sunzu2 likes this.
Well without these slop picture, how would I know what to waste my money on?!?!?
Normie, circa 2025
like this
Endymion_Mallorn likes this.
OP, I'm not going to castigate you for your Google usage. I am going to assume that you are aware of the privacy concerns when dealing with Google since you are posting here in a Privacy chan. Sometimes, people are required to use Google services and there is no way around that. If that were my situation, I'd use a sandbox, VPN, 7 diff proxies, and a hazmat suit. If this Google usage is not required by say an employer, I'd find something more private.
Google does have some pretty cool technology. Unfortunately most of it, if not all, is built off of data theft.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn e lusterko0 like this.
Right? I would think that people in a Privacy community, especially one on Lemmy would not use anything Google unless their employers or inexperienced clients forced their hand in some way.
Just to be clear to anyone else, I don't know the lives of anyone in this community, and everyone is on their own path at their own pace.
Nevertheless, it's still a bit exasperating if this is a community where we have to repeat over and over that Google and Apple and everything Big Tech is essentially the bad choice.
As someone who isn't a coder, the reason why I hang out in communities like these for a long time now is to hear the coders and more tech savvy people catching nonsense earlier than I would have on my own. Beyond the code that nonsense includes legislation also.
But that's just me.
like this
Endymion_Mallorn e lusterko0 like this.
not everyone has nudes on their phones, not everyone will get to know that they are leaked, and afaik google hasn't even leaked user images ever.
they. won't. notice. it. they wouldn't notice even if they were subjected to personalized pricing.
Articles – Untraceable Digital Dissident
Archives Latest Articles CategoriesUntraceable Digital Dissident
Unpopular opinion (here anyway):
Google timeline is really useful! Let's you know where you where when you need to know. Have used it, or told people to use it multiple times when someone needs to know when/how long they have been out of the country, or when they moved house etc.
They made a change recently so that it's all local or something? Not sure how that works.
Having home, work and other key locations set in Google maps is also..... Really useful.
I've never come a cross a situation where I need to know how long I've been somewhere more accurately than I can remember that I can't easily figure out some other way
You can also age locations in Google maps without having to store your location 24/7
It's not spyware anymore. It's stored on device so Google does not have access to it. It was a big issue when they did this as people could not longer log into the website and view their history. Right now there is no way to back it up so if you loose your phone you loose your history.
Reading these comments first nobody knows Google moved it locally.
Okay so it doesn't matter that I don't let them collect it in the first place so there's no reason to turn it on, cool.
Unless you're wrong of course, but I trust you, random paragraph I encountered anonymously on an internet forum and engaged with for 8 seconds before moving on with my life forever. You couldn't possibly have a vested interest in misleading me and hey my coffee is ready.
Apple CEO gives Trump gold gift exceeding company policy; Tim Cook's 24-karat gold present exceeds Apple's $10 limit for US officials.
Apple CEO gives Trump gold gift exceeding company policy
Tim Cook's 24-karat gold present exceeds Apple's $10 limit for US officials.Luis Rijo (PPC Land)
adhocfungus likes this.
Warren, Sanders, Wyden, Welch Warn Google and YouTube CEOs Against Breaking Anti-Bribery Laws in Potential Settlement with Trump Administration
Warren, Sanders, Wyden, Welch Warn Google and YouTube CEOs Against Breaking Anti-Bribery Laws in Potential Settlement with Trump Administration | U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusettswww.warren.senate.gov
adhocfungus likes this.
Exiled Moldovan opposition head decries police crackdown
Exiled Moldovan opposition head decries police crackdown
Exiled Moldovan opposition politician Ilan Shor has denounced the election-related police crackdownRT
Chris Cuomo mocked after falling for deepfake video of AOC slamming Sydney Sweeney ad
In his post accompanying the ersatz video showing AOC wearing a black blazer and with her hair in a bun, Cuomo denounced the Democrat for having misplaced priorities.
“Nothing about hamas or people burning jews cars. But sweeney jeans ad? Deserved time on floor of congress? What happd to this party? Fight for small business …not for small culture wars,” he wrote.
Cuomo failed to notice that the AI-generated video bore a clear watermark stating it was “parody 100% made with AI.” - The supposed hard-hitting journalist also apparently forgot that Congress is not in session.
After the embarrassing gaffe, Cuomo acknowledged his error and removed the original post. However, his response attempted to shift focus back to his original criticism of the congresswoman regarding the Israel-Hamas war.
“You are correct… that was a deepfake (but it really does sound like you). Thank you for correcting. But now to the central claim: show me you calling on hamas to surrender or addressing the bombing of a car in st louis belonging to the idf american soldier?…dude?” he wrote.
Chris Cuomo mocked after falling for deepfake video of AOC slamming Sydney Sweeney ad
The veteran journalist apparently can’t tell AOC from an AI-OC.Ariel Zilber (New York Post)
Substack’s extremist ecosystem is flourishing
Substack’s extremist ecosystem is flourishing
The app's recent swastika push alert was just the tip of the iceberg.The Handbasket
Trump Is Quietly Using The U.S. Military In A Whole New Way
Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has authorized several unprecedented military actions and territorial claims:
Border Militarization:
- Transferred control of the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot-wide strip along the US-Mexico border, to the Department of Defense in April 20251
- Established "National Defense Areas" in New Mexico and Texas, treating them as military installations where troops can detain migrants1
- Deployed over 10,000 troops to patrol and monitor the border2
Los Angeles Military Deployment:
- Federalized California National Guard troops in June 2025 over Governor Newsom's objections3
- Deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles following immigration protests3
- A June 19 appeals court ruling upheld Trump's authority to deploy troops in American cities4
Territorial Claims:
- Refused to rule out military force to seize control of Greenland from Denmark5
- Threatened military action to retake control of the Panama Canal5
- Proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America"5
Legal Framework:
- Administration argues military activities at border are legal under "military purpose doctrine" exception to Posse Comitatus Act1
- Critics say actions violate constitutional limits on military involvement in domestic law enforcement1
- Brennan Center called the border militarization "a transparent ruse to evade the Posse Comitatus Act"1
- Huffpost - Trump Is Quietly Using The U.S. Military In A Whole New Way ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
- Newsweek - Donald Trump expands US military role at southern border ↩︎
- CNN - Trump seizes on Los Angeles protests in contentious use of military amid migrant crackdown ↩︎ ↩︎
- The Conversation - Appeals court ruling grants Donald Trump broad powers to deploy troops to American cities ↩︎
- AP News - Trump refuses to rule out use of military force to take control of Greenland and Panama Canal ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Donald Trump Expands US Military Role at Southern Border
This directive involves the use of federal lands for military activities, such as constructing barriers and deploying equipment.Gabe Whisnant (Newsweek)
This only can go worse
Getting Started with Cloudflare Tunnel
Getting Started with Cloudflare Tunnel | David Ma
A guide to setting up and using Cloudflare Tunnel for local development.www.davidma.co
Ramaphosa Discusses Bilateral Trade With Trump, South Africa's Presidency Says
Ramaphosa Discusses Bilateral Trade With Trump, South Africa's Presidency Says
Ramaphosa Discusses Bilateral Trade With Trump, South Africa's Presidency SaysDuring a phone conversation, the two presidents emphasized their commitment to continued dialogue, the presidency said in a statement.Detailed discussions...Sputnik Africa
Russia Shoots Down Storm Shadow Missiles and Hundreds of Drones in 24 Hours
Russia Downs 240 Ukrainian Drones and 8 British Storm Shadow Missiles
Russia’s Ministry of Defense announced on August 7 that its air defense systems shot down eight UK-made Storm Shadow missiles and 240 Ukrainian drones overnightPetr Ermilin (Pravda English)
Putin not against meeting Zelensky, conditions should be created
Putin not against meeting Zelensky, conditions should be created
As the Russian president noted, there is still a long haul ahead for creation of such conditionsTASS
Pashinyan Selling Off Armenia’s Sovereignty to the West: Here’s What It Means for South Caucasus
Pashinyan Selling Off Armenia’s Sovereignty to the West: Here’s What It Means for South Caucasus
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is digging a suicidal geopolitical hole for Armenia by trading sovereignty for shaky Western promises, warned political analyst Shota Apkhaidze.Sputnik International
Trump Is Launching an AI Search Engine Powered by Perplexity
Trump Is Launching an AI Search Engine Powered by Perplexity
Donald Trump’s media company is teaming up with Perplexity to bring AI search to Truth Social, the President’s X.com alternative.Truth announced the endeavor in a press release on Wednesday. Anyone using the browser version of Truth can now use Perplexity to search the web. “We’re proud to partner with Perplexity to launch our public Beta testing of Truth Social AI, which will make Truth Social an even more vital element in the Patriot Economy,” Devin Nunes, Trump Media's CEO and Chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, said in the press release.
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
“We’re excited to partner with Truth Social to bring powerful AI to an audience with important questions. Curiosity is the engine of change, and Perplexity’s AI is developed to empower curiosity by delivering direct, reliable answers with transparent citations that allow anyone to dig deeper,” Perplexity’s chief business officer Dmitry Shevelenko said in the press release.According to the announcement, “the mission of Trump Media is to end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the Internet and giving people their voices back.” Which is a funny thing to put in an announcement about Trump partnering with a company whose investors include Jeff Bezos, Nvidia, and the former CEO of GitHub.
Perplexity’s Truth Social search engine will be powered by stolen content. Earlier this week, Cloudflare reported Perplexity used stealth and undeclared crawlers to evade websites that explicitly set themselves up to avoid being catalogued by LLMs. Perplexity has a long history of using scrapers that ignore the Robots Exclusion Protocol. Perplexity started as a demo that scraped Twitter with fake academic accounts backed by AI-generated research proposals.
Forbes, the New York Times, New York Post, and the Dow Jones have all accused Perplexity of plagiarism. News Corp‘s Dow Jones & Co., publisher of the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post sued Perplexity in 2024 for copyright infringement, claiming in the federal lawsuit that Perplexity is “engaging in a massive amount of illegal copying of publishers’ copyrighted works and diverting customers and critical revenues away from those copyright holders.” In 2024, WIRED reported on the accusations of Perplexity’s plagiarism and Perplexity almost immediately plagiarized the story. When New York Times tech workers went on strike last year, Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas offered to help the Times keep the paper going.
Big Tech has aligned itself with the Trump administration since before the election, seeing an alliance of opportunity for deregulation of AI in particular.
But is the Perplexity-powered AI aggregation machine “woke?” I asked a few questions to find out. I wanted to know: Is Trump in the Epstein files?“There is no evidence in the recently reviewed and released government ‘Epstein Files’ of a ‘client list” or documentation placing Donald Trump as implicated in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal actions,” it said. “While Trump’s name, like many other prominent individuals, appears in public records of Epstein’s social and business contacts (such as guest lists or flight logs, widely reported over the years), there is no mention in current official documents or filings that directly implicates Trump as a criminal participant in Epstein’s sex trafficking activities.”
How does Truth Social’s search engine think the American economy is doing?
“The American economy is currently facing significant headwinds, with signs of slowdown—most notably by a contraction in GDP, rising inflation, and softening labor market conditions—though some leaders still emphasize areas of resilience,” Truth Search AI said.
Are the tariffs to blame?“Recent tariff increases in the United States have generally had a negative effect on economic growth and employment, raising costs for businesses and consumers while providing only limited benefits to some manufacturing sectors,” Truth Search AI said.
Damn. It’s woke as hell.
Big Tech Backed Trump for Acceleration. They Got a Decel President Instead
Effective accelerationists didn’t just accidentally shoot themselves in the foot. They methodically blew off each of their toes with a .50 caliber sniper rifle.Emanuel Maiberg (404 Media)
like this
thisisbutaname e adhocfungus like this.
X plans to show ads in Grok chatbot's answers
X plans to show ads in Grok chatbot's answers
Grok's responses to users on X could include paid advertisements in the future.Mariella Moon (Engadget)
Fitik likes this.
Tech giants turning blind eye to child sex abuse, Australian watchdog says
Tech giants turning blind eye to child sex abuse, Australian watchdog says
Commissioner’s recommendations for tech companies include measures that have been criticised on privacy grounds.John Power (Al Jazeera)
Google search boss says AI isn’t killing search clicks
Google search boss says AI isn’t killing search clicks
Liz Reid says Google’s data shows AI is generating consistent clicks and better experiences.Ryan Whitwam (Ars Technica)
adhocfungus likes this.
Monkeys can't write, only hit random keys, but several monkey brains interconnected with each other, with an LLM, can.
In such a scenario, there'd still be a random factor behind the monkey's behaviors: less of a pure randomness, more of a Weasel Program.
how many monkey brains are needed to connect to have the capability of an human brain.
I often consider the Homo sapiens intelligence not as superior than other species, but just a different approach for problem-solving capabilities and tool-making among living beings. For instance, crows (particularly the New Caledonian crow) are well-known for exceptional intelligence, because they're not just able to use tools, they're also able to use tools to make/fix other tools (just like humans).
That said, I bet it would require less crow brains than monkey brains for human-like intelligence to emerge, despite primates being genetically closer to humans. Crows are awesome.
Huawei to open-source AI chip toolkit to take on Nvidia’s proprietary platform
Tech war: Huawei to open-source AI chip toolkit to take on Nvidia’s proprietary platform
The move will help accelerate innovation from developers, while making Ascend chips easier to use, Huawei’s Eric Xu says.Xinmei Shen (South China Morning Post)
Large language model developed by Chinese researchers helps rescue in Myanmar earthquake
Large language model developed by Chinese researchers helps rescue in Myanmar earthquake
A large language model developed by researchers from Beijing Language and Culture University (BLCU) was applied in rescue efforts following the devastating earthquake in Myanmar on March 28. It was recently included inwww.globaltimes.cn
Technology reshared this.
FEP-c313: Replies Addressed to Original Author’s Followers
Hello!
This is a discussion thread for the proposed FEP-c313: Replies Addressed to Original Author’s Followers. Please use this thread to discuss the proposed FEP and any potential problems or improvements that can be addressed.
Summary
This proposal introduces an ActivityPub extension to improve reply distribution. It allows a reply (comment) to be addressed directly to the original post author’s followers collection, so that followers of the original author can receive the reply. This behavior aligns with how networks like Diaspora and Friendica distribute comments, and aims to enhance conversation visibility across federated servers.
A new flag in NodeInfo metadata advertises support for this extension. Servers implementing this FEP can thus coordinate reply delivery: if both servers support it, a reply will be forwarded to the original author’s followers automatically; otherwise, the sender can fallback to standard distribution.
Re: FEP-c313: Replies Addressed to Original Author’s Followers
Hi Dima, as I understand it, you can put OP's followers collection in the recipients list, and as per protocol the originating server should forward along the replies.
As per section 7.1.2, unless I misread?
Re: FEP-c313: Replies Addressed to Original Author’s Followers
If Mastodon doesn't support forwarding delivery to local collections, then you're still facing an uphill battle getting Mastodon to support your FEP, no?
In which case wouldn't it be roughly equivalent to get Mastodon to support 7.1.2 of the AP spec?
Rudee
in reply to bubblybubbles • • •