"Cutting water, cutting electricity, cutting food to a mass of civilian people is against international law," said EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in Muscat.
What kind of military benefit did Soviets get from the USSR-NaziGermany Non Agression Treaty? Is it limited to not getting military supplies and personnel consumed and depleted? Because Soviets did not want to work together, but to stave off the threat of Nazi Germany becoming a bigger, deadlier regime (which it did soon enough), only for USSR to pummel their empire out of existence.
In my opinion, a joint agreement of boundaries of a soon to be annexed country would be beneficial to both parties.
This is a rough analogy that doesn’t touch on many of the intricacies of global politics so bear with me. If you and your neighbor both have a claim to a plot of land between you, and your options are to work together and come to an agreement, or to fight over it, wouldn’t it be beneficial to both to make the agreement?
No, at no point were the USSR and Nazis allied. There were no trade agreements, no personnel support, and no treaty outside of the Pact. However, I think it is disingenuous to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany did not militarily benefit each other.
I am not going to talk about if and but / whatif nonsense. Tell me about practical, historical and real world consequences. Did USSR somehow benefit from or signed the non-aggression pact for hopes of world domination (the goal of Hitler)? If no, why did you say “USSR and Nazi Germany were definitely working together”?
It is disingenuous to say USSR benefitted militarily from Nazi Germany. There were no “winkwink world domination” headgames going on between Hitler and Stalin, which is the foul smell coming off from your comments.
What the fuck? Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the entirety of the Eastern European Bloc? I can tell you have it in your mind that this is me vs socialism or some weird argument. I’m done engaging with this conversation. Foul smell coming off your comments.
What kind of military benefit did Soviets get from the USSR-NaziGermany Non Agression Treaty? Is it limited to not getting military supplies and personnel consumed and depleted? Because Soviets did not want to work together, but to stave off the threat of Nazi Germany becoming a bigger, deadlier regime (which it did soon enough), only for USSR to pummel their empire out of existence.
In my opinion, a joint agreement of boundaries of a soon to be annexed country would be beneficial to both parties.
This is a rough analogy that doesn’t touch on many of the intricacies of global politics so bear with me. If you and your neighbor both have a claim to a plot of land between you, and your options are to work together and come to an agreement, or to fight over it, wouldn’t it be beneficial to both to make the agreement?
No, at no point were the USSR and Nazis allied. There were no trade agreements, no personnel support, and no treaty outside of the Pact. However, I think it is disingenuous to say that the USSR and Nazi Germany did not militarily benefit each other.
I am not going to talk about if and but / whatif nonsense. Tell me about practical, historical and real world consequences. Did USSR somehow benefit from or signed the non-aggression pact for hopes of world domination (the goal of Hitler)? If no, why did you say “USSR and Nazi Germany were definitely working together”?
It is disingenuous to say USSR benefitted militarily from Nazi Germany. There were no “winkwink world domination” headgames going on between Hitler and Stalin, which is the foul smell coming off from your comments.
What the fuck? Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the entirety of the Eastern European Bloc? I can tell you have it in your mind that this is me vs socialism or some weird argument. I’m done engaging with this conversation. Foul smell coming off your comments.