I mean it doesn’t change the fact that Soviet Union did make a deal with the Nazis and split Europe between them. Nobody is doubting that there was a reason for doing it.
Yawn, this again.
As I thought, pulled from your ass and the same cheap tricks they try to claim with this pact.
A non-aggression treaty is not “split Europe between them”
You might want to read the whole first sentence of the article lol
was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, with a secret protocol establishing Soviet and German spheres of influence across Eastern Europe.
LOL Maybe you should learn that Wikipedia is not a source and proven to be extremely biased and manipulated.
You don’t even know that.
And even that Wiki page doesn’t cite sources, something you need if you don’t want to be seen as just making shit up, which you clearly are.
You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.
Wikipedia just has approachable articles, so I linked to that since you seemingly hadn’t heard of the pact. It cites sources like so [1] for further reading. And the existence of such pact has been admitted to in Germany, Soviet Union and later in Russia. Its existence isn’t exactly controversial. It’s rather how justified it was that’s argued about.
You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.
Here’s the original texts [1], [2]. If you want an English translation, plenty of them online. Heres’ one (pdf). The secret protocols are at the end.
I’ve been to school and it’s invariably mentioned to make the BS claims you make.
And I probably know better than you how Wikipedia works.
NONE of the references show what they claim.
The original texts talk about ‘spheres of influence’ in the tiny Baltics andthe rest is only about Poland.
It even says:
" The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an
independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely
determined in the course of further political developments."
That hardly sounds like ‘dividing Europe between them’.
I could call that a deliberate misinterpretation.
If you want countries making deals with the nazis that literally say they can annex them even look to the Brits and France.
“Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and and defenses to Nazi Germany” is more like it.
Funny how they never mention that or the dozen of other pacts with nazis, all of them before the Soviets.
I mean they are literally drawing spheres of interest (even using the word) in there on how they’ll divide those countries. And then after the deal, they conquered and subjugated their subjective areas (or tried to, in case of Finland). Your objection to that not being them dividing Europe between them is, not to be insulting, kinda silly.
I mean if anything at least you’re not trying to deny such an agreement, you’re just reading it in a very interesting way. That’s something.
I think you misunderstood. It doesn’t change the fact that such a pact happened and that they did divide Europe between them in it. It’s opinion on how justified such a thing where those arguments matter.
Giving facts without appropriate context IS manipulation.
Stalin certainly wasn’t stupid enough to genuinely ally with the nazis and did took pragmatic decision after he was turned away by the ally, who hated communism as much as hitler.
You get that Russia flight with Germany until they got betrayed right? Right?
never happened.
That was the preceding discussion. Someone seemed to be denying it happening at all. Someone came in with a justification for the action, I was just saying that it doesn’t change the fact of it happening, just the justification over it. For further clarification, I’m against the denialism. I’m not saying it wasn’t a pragmatic decision, even if morally dubious.
I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt since their tone seemed to be changing a bit during the discussion, but it turned out it was just the old “that didn’t happen and even if it did” thing.
I mean it doesn’t change the fact that Soviet Union did make a deal with the Nazis and split Europe between them. Nobody is doubting that there was a reason for doing it.
Stalin offered the western powers a million men to field against nazi germany, and they refused.
If that’s a ‘fact’ it should be easy to prove right?
Or is it more likely you pulled it from your ass?
Not sure if you’re joking but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact
Yawn, this again.
As I thought, pulled from your ass and the same cheap tricks they try to claim with this pact.
A non-aggression treaty is not “split Europe between them”
Wait I’ll return the favor:
Here is the deal between the nazis and their friends from England to split Europe between them.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030005003
You might want to read the whole first sentence of the article lol
LOL Maybe you should learn that Wikipedia is not a source and proven to be extremely biased and manipulated.
You don’t even know that.
And even that Wiki page doesn’t cite sources, something you need if you don’t want to be seen as just making shit up, which you clearly are.
You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.
Wikipedia just has approachable articles, so I linked to that since you seemingly hadn’t heard of the pact. It cites sources like so [1] for further reading. And the existence of such pact has been admitted to in Germany, Soviet Union and later in Russia. Its existence isn’t exactly controversial. It’s rather how justified it was that’s argued about.
Here’s the original texts [1], [2]. If you want an English translation, plenty of them online. Heres’ one (pdf). The secret protocols are at the end.
I’ve been to school and it’s invariably mentioned to make the BS claims you make.
And I probably know better than you how Wikipedia works.
NONE of the references show what they claim.
The original texts talk about ‘spheres of influence’ in the tiny Baltics andthe rest is only about Poland.
It even says:
" The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments."
That hardly sounds like ‘dividing Europe between them’.
I could call that a deliberate misinterpretation.
If you want countries making deals with the nazis that literally say they can annex them even look to the Brits and France. “Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and and defenses to Nazi Germany” is more like it.
Funny how they never mention that or the dozen of other pacts with nazis, all of them before the Soviets.
I mean they are literally drawing spheres of interest (even using the word) in there on how they’ll divide those countries. And then after the deal, they conquered and subjugated their subjective areas (or tried to, in case of Finland). Your objection to that not being them dividing Europe between them is, not to be insulting, kinda silly.
I mean if anything at least you’re not trying to deny such an agreement, you’re just reading it in a very interesting way. That’s something.
It totally does change it. Making a non-aggression pact with the biggest military in the world just sounds like a rational move.
I think you misunderstood. It doesn’t change the fact that such a pact happened and that they did divide Europe between them in it. It’s opinion on how justified such a thing where those arguments matter.
Giving facts without appropriate context IS manipulation.
Stalin certainly wasn’t stupid enough to genuinely ally with the nazis and did took pragmatic decision after he was turned away by the ally, who hated communism as much as hitler.
That was the preceding discussion. Someone seemed to be denying it happening at all. Someone came in with a justification for the action, I was just saying that it doesn’t change the fact of it happening, just the justification over it. For further clarification, I’m against the denialism. I’m not saying it wasn’t a pragmatic decision, even if morally dubious.
Not seemingly, they’re saying it directly.
I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt since their tone seemed to be changing a bit during the discussion, but it turned out it was just the old “that didn’t happen and even if it did” thing.
Yeah they’re a propaganda bot or an absolutely absurd human being.