Because studying history helps us understand the present. A lot of anti-USSR tropes used in the past are still used today.
It’s basically the reason why people mention Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam as examples of the US media lying to justify invasion: if you look at the pattern of constant lies that the US does, then you probably won’t trust them when they go “trust me guys, [insert country here] is totally evil and we need to spread democracy there”
Because you called it a non-aggression pact and then in the next comment talk about how the US does it too.
But you’re not acknowledging it’s the same mechanism. An empire, a government of mass power plays the messaging game so their imperial goals are shrouded in loyalty and misinformation.
Russia agreed to spheres of influence, to slicing up Poland and then engaged in violence on another country. You called that a non-aggression pact. Like c’mon man…
Slicing up Poland? Which were actually Belarusian, Ukrainian, and even Lithuanian lands actually? You should replace the ‘e’ with ‘a’ in your username. Don’t mention that the Polish nationalists frequently committed cultural erasure and programs against the aforementioned peoples, through a process called ‘Polonization’. These lands were overwhelmingly not Polish at all, so you’re not ‘slicing up’ Poland by returning Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Lithuanian lands; which were under active policy of Polonization during the Second Polish Republic, of the 1920s to 1930s.
Well it’s not a pact of non aggression when you’re planning the aggression.
But I don’t know why you are defensive…? It’s literally a century ago.
Because studying history helps us understand the present. A lot of anti-USSR tropes used in the past are still used today.
It’s basically the reason why people mention Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam as examples of the US media lying to justify invasion: if you look at the pattern of constant lies that the US does, then you probably won’t trust them when they go “trust me guys, [insert country here] is totally evil and we need to spread democracy there”
Lol that’s a little ironic
In what way?
Also, you didn’t answer the question: what were the Soviets supposed to do?
Because you called it a non-aggression pact and then in the next comment talk about how the US does it too.
But you’re not acknowledging it’s the same mechanism. An empire, a government of mass power plays the messaging game so their imperial goals are shrouded in loyalty and misinformation.
Russia agreed to spheres of influence, to slicing up Poland and then engaged in violence on another country. You called that a non-aggression pact. Like c’mon man…
Respectfully, I will send you this post that talks more about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. It does a better job than me at explaining this.
Slicing up Poland? Which were actually Belarusian, Ukrainian, and even Lithuanian lands actually? You should replace the ‘e’ with ‘a’ in your username. Don’t mention that the Polish nationalists frequently committed cultural erasure and programs against the aforementioned peoples, through a process called ‘Polonization’. These lands were overwhelmingly not Polish at all, so you’re not ‘slicing up’ Poland by returning Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Lithuanian lands; which were under active policy of Polonization during the Second Polish Republic, of the 1920s to 1930s.
**Sorry I was a bit rude at the start