volodya_ilich @ volodya_ilich @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

543

Joined

1 yr. ago

Here we go again with the right-wing revisionist propaganda.

The USSR had proposed, prior to 1939 and throughout all of the 30s, mutual-defense agreements with Poland, France and England, which all of them rejected. The USSR offered to enter a war against nazism as a response to the Munich agreements and the annexation of Czechoslovakia by nazis and Poland, but France and England (and obviously Poland) didn't want that. The Soviets went as far as to offer sending ONE MILLION soldiers to France, together with artillery, aviation and tanks, on exchange for a mutual-defense agreement with France and England. As was later discovered through released embassy wires, the French and English ambassadors were instructed not to make a peace agreement with the Soviets under any condition, but to pretend to be interested and to prolong the negotiations for as long as possible... presumably expecting Nazis to invade the Soviet Union, given that communists were their self-declared enemy and they held racial motivations to eliminate "the Slavic Untermenschen". It was convenient, letting the Nazis deal with the communists (since England and France had failed to eliminate Bolshevism during their invasion of Russia in the Russian Civil War), two birds with one stone.

The Soviet Union, which had only begun industrializing in 1928 with its first 5-year plan, compared to the century-long history of industrialization of Germany, simply didn't have the material means to single-handedly fight nazism in 1939. This is further proven by the fact that, after the invasion of the USSR by the Nazis, 27 million Soviet lives were lost in the struggle against fascism. They DESPERATELY needed every single year they could buy, and they DESPERATELY needed to avoid facing the Nazis in a one-on-one struggle. Without the lend-lease program, and without the western front, who's to say if the Soviet Union would have simply succumbed to Nazi Germany, and the horrifying additional extent of genocide that Nazis would have been able to perpetrate.

In case you don't believe me personally, I'll leave you another comment below this one with quotes of western politicians and diplomats of the period, showing the revisionism that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has been subjected to.

No people in the government doing sieg heil in China though.

Colour me surprised, a "no labels" guy who calls himself centrist-right. Fucking laughable.

OK, then tell me some of your core principles

How would you describe yourself? Labels are useful

Are you claiming that people condemning invasion of Ukraine are bad then?

How's that related? Of course not. Modern Russia isn't the former USSR, conflating both is absurd.

Because "the entire west" does not condemn true socialism, or communism

Questioning the contemporary western-fabricated narrative of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact gets you labeled redfash by libs and communist (as a demeaning word) by the right, who supports actually existing socialism in the west?

The UK general election in 2019 had 40% of seats go to Corbyn, vs 42% going to the Tories

So 82% of seats go to either radical economic liberalism and social conservatism, or to milquetoast socialdemocrats, how does that not reinforce what I'm saying?

Your glorious western media just put in the government a gentleman doing the Nazi salute. Long live editorial freedom of speech for the rich.

Communist soviet union lost 27 mullion, not Jews. Jews were mass-murdered in concentration camos and that's a tragedy too

Tends to happen when the entire west condemns the nation and ideology that lost 27 million people in the fight against actual nazis

At no point did I discuss political prisoners (who exist in my Western European country too, believe it or not). I discussed the reliability of mass media, the level of state propaganda, manufactured consent and fabricated news. Some person you know being in prison has nothing to do with that, don't immediately go and play the victim card, we' were discussing western media here. You're just shutting your ears and saying "the existence of authority abuse elsewhere means you have no right to mention the western bias in western media".

Westerners are priviliaged to have a diverse and free news/media landscape, non-profits pushing for truthful and accessible knowledge, and world-class educational institutions

Bullshit. Westerners fall for western propaganda as much as anyone. Most on Lemmy were certain that the submarine cables were destroyed by the Russians on purpose, turns out the consensus isn't the case. Most on Lemmy were certain that Nordstream was blown up by Russian, turned out not to be the case. Most on Lemmy believe there's an ongoing genocide against Uyghur people, turns out it's not the case. Most on Lemmy believe there was a massacre in Tiananmen square (good luck asking them to spell it) because the CPC sent the PLA to murder protestors, instead of a clash between protestors and military which happened after weeks of pro-capitalist protests and started after protestors murdered some military personnel in negotiation attempts. Most on Lemmy are willing to forgive the support for Genocide in Gaza to the US and its constant imperialism and aren't willing to do the same for other countries.

You're just being extremely chauvinist and ignorant about the quality of information in the west, and unaware of the manufacture of consent and the fabrication of false information and narratives.

resorting to more time-proven, unbiased, and trust-worthy ways to learn

Which are these unbiased ways to learn you talk about? Can you provide me any examples?

So let's instead confine ourselves to social media from western countries which reflects exclusively western bias, whether through censorship as is the case of Meta/X, or through contributions by overwhelmingly white western men as is the case of Lemmy. Just look at politics.world and see what country most linked articles are from.

Maybe, just maybe, having more diverse options, including social media from other countries not subjected to western bias, could be good? That way maybe you can see some realities hidden by the Chinese government heavily publicised in western social media, and viceversa

If TikTok has the power to "turn" youth into pro Palestine, they can also turn the youth pro China when China invades Taiwan

You're not making the argument you think you're making here. Tiktok showed young people the uncensored truth about the genocide. If showing the uncensored truth about Taiwan makes young people want an invasion by China, then it means China is right?

Again: point out the exact reference in the "report", because I simply can't find it, I already asked you twice to do that.

Anyway, amazing that your argument is "look, Uyghur genocide is real. And here's the evidence: US intelligence state propaganda"

Wow, you learned it in high school, must be true then lmao. I was taught in high school that the Spanish empire was cool and based, and there were no atrocities in Latin america in my studies.

The claims of Holodomor being a genocide against Ukrainian are new, mostly post-2000s, and part of nationalist movements in eastern Europe and russophobia/anticommunism.

The document is from a US intelligence agency from what it seems, it's poorly referenced, and even then there's nothing post-2021, is there?

I explicitly asked to please point at the reference within the article, because I'm exhausted of people just finding articles on google on this topic on western media and sending them to me without reading them. Please tell me what post-2021 huma right abuses are referenced and well-sourced in the report

My views are that both these governments are terrible, though I admittedly am not very informed about China

Rofl. Lmao even

the treatment of ethnic minorities

You mean the US having the highest prison population in the world, to the point of 1 in 5 black men over 30 having been to jail at some point of their lives?