this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
791 points (89.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
6332 readers
4212 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A Marxist is stuck in a room with a liberal, a fascist, and an anarchist. The Marxist has one gun and two bullets. What does the Marxist do? Shoot the liberal and the anarchist.
(Based off actual historical events.)
Marxists aren't fascist they have a particular philosophy but they're not violent. There's only one violent person in that room.
Historically, the Marxists were the ones that stopped the Nazis. 80% of combat in WWII was fought on the Eastern Front. Meanwhile, the liberals in Germany had linked hands with the Nazis to exterminate the Marxists early on in the Nazi rise to power. Additionally, the Soviets were the only ones materially backing the Anarchists in Spain.
The Soviet Union did more to stop the fascists than anyone else, and 27 million people in the Soviet Union were killed in the fight.
Yeah, but that's after they made an alliance with Nazi Germany. An alliance Germany broke, not the USSR.
The Telegraph, 2008: Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact' | Stalin was 'prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border to deter Hitler's aggression just before the Second World War'
I don't see how the fact that France and Britain refused an alliance with the USSR makes the one with Nazi Germany more acceptable.
And do you know why France and Britain refused? It's in your text:
Because between the Soviet and German borders there were countries! What Stalin asked was to conquer independent countries with the benediction of Paris and London. It was not a generous offer, it was an imperialist ultimatum. “Let me invade Poland, Romania and other allies of yours, and that will calm Hitler” was in substance Stalin's proposition.
And to put true non-aggression pacts like the ones with France and Britain in the same group as an offensive alliance which was actually the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is intellectually dishonest.
A non-aggression pact is not so much of an alliance. Nazis are the ones who broke it anyway. US armed/financed German military-industrial complex.
It was not just a pact of non aggression. They attacked Poland together, and shared its territory. It was an alliance.
ok. The dangerous impression that leads to hate against Russia is "Nazi Germany and USSR loved each other, and so by transitive property of disinformed dementia were the same," because they had some shady agreements. Modern conservative/western (of Ukraine) naziism revisionism is that Hitler/Germany were socialist liberals "just like USSR"
And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact included (in secret) an agreement dividing Europe up into Nazi and Soviet halves preemptively.
The USSR first sought an alliance with Britain and France which was rejected, so they signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Britain and France also signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, betraying one of their allies (Czechoslovakia) in exchange.
Should we take the fact that the US and USSR fought on the same side in WWII to say that they were always close friends and ideologically aligned, completely ignoring everything else? Because if anything that would be more reasonable to assert, because it never escalated to a hot war between the two.
It wasn't just a pact of non-aggression. They divided Poland between themselves! France and Britain abandoned Czechoslovakia to avoid a war, USSR made an alliance with Nazi Germany to begin one.
And USSR and the US were on the same side because they were attacked by allied countries (Germany and Japan), they didn't chose one another. Stop your historical revisionism.
I won't defend all of the USSR's actions, but it's absurd to suggest they were motivated by any sort of ideological alignment with the Nazis as opposed to self-interest and circumstance, in the same way that the US and USSR were motivated by a common interest rather than ideological alignment.
At basically every other moment in history, all across the globe, Marxists and fascists have been at each other's throats.
Nothing I've said is in the least bit "historical revisionism."
Still, the USSR considered that an alliance with Nazi Germany was ideologically acceptable, even if they were not aligned. Because the only true ideology of USSR was to maintain its leaders in power, Marxism was just a facade. And that's will always ultimately the case with authoritarian governments.
Of course self-preservation was a priority for the USSR, as it is with any nation. Failure to achieve self-preservation would have meant being ruled by the Nazis.
Not sure how that in any way indicates that "Marxism was a facade."
Self-preservation is something else than making an offensive alliance with Nazis.
The Soviet Union was not entitled to an alliance with partners they were at war with only a decade prior. Britain and France were at war with the entity that would become the Soviet Union until 1922, There was no reason to Trust an alliance from a state that was ideologically opposed to them and wanted to destroy their way of life.
But the Victim complex from the Russians is a venerable beast, it was as relevant in 1925 as it was in 2025.
I'm not sure how it's relevant whether or not the Soviets were "entitled" to an alliance. What matters is the fact that they attempted to negotiate one there first.
I can ask for a cup of sugar from the neighbor who I wrecked the car of last month. that neighbor is still within his reasonable rights to tell me to fuck off
Again, not relevant. The point is not how Britain and France responded, the point is that the Soviets chose to go to them first.
Which the Red Army made up for by murdering untold thousands of German citizens on the way to Berlin. Let's not pretend the Soviets weren't huge pieces of shit, the only reason they didn't start WW2 was because they were too busy shitting in buckets and starving to death.
The only people you idiot .ml users are fooling is yourselves, so I don't know why you bother with this revisionist bullshit.
Projection, as always.
The Soviet Union. Or more accuratley, RUSSIA was one of the two aggressors that Started the second world war.
Furthermore, they were not an ally, but a co-belligerent. Why else did the free world go from a period of direct confrontation and war in the 20s, to Cold war in the 30s. to temporary truce for 4 years from 1941 to 1945. right back to Cold war with Moscow from 1945 till 1991? (and then another temporary truce from 1991 until about 2008) right back to more or less being de facto at war with each other again since 2014
And you can't pin tens of millions of your own people, with Purges, Pogroms, Mentally handicapped suicidal orders. And general paranoid hysterical incompetnece. and blame those on the germans.
especially when large percentages of those people were colonized nations that wanted nothing to do with the Bolshevik Russian Imperial rule (Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles, Balts etc and were just used like buffers and meat shields)
Do nations typically put aside differences to make temporary truces with co-belligerents of the nations they're at war with?
I dont know. you tell me. Outside of the thunderdome in the middle east. whens the last time there was a major conflict with dozens of nations and more than two major ideoligies at play.
If you're asking in good faith. World War II's situation was largely unprecedented.
Unlike WWI Where Imperial Russia and France were allied. Soviet Russia was not allied with France, Britain, or western Europe.
The point is that the US put aside ideological differences because the USSR was fighting against the Nazis, they were not "co-belligerents."
for four years. a temporary matter. they went right back to being in a hostile competition for spheres of influence a few weeks or months after V-E day however.
Well, that's twice as long as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact lasted before the Nazis and Communists went right back to killing each other, not just in a "hostile competition" but in a large scale, total war that left tens of millions of people dead.
If anyone disagrees:
Kronstadt
Spanish Civil War
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
The War in Ukraine
Etc.
I'm confused.
Did you forget how all the MLs were rooting for Putin and performing apologetics about how Russia had "national trauma from its interactions with the west"? (actual quote, btw.) They pointed out how there were some factions in the military that were antisemitic and ignored the openly fascist policies of the Kremlin.
Were? They're still rooting for him. As the soviets would say, they're useful idiots.
JFC.. Russia needs to neutralize Ukraine for self defense from demonic NATO intentions to diminish it. Disinformation blaming Russia just allows your rulers and oligarchs corruption profits while your own countries are diminished instead. Pretending that all of your evil benefits Ukrainian people is by far the worst outcome of your hate.
NATO is demonic, that's a new one. Believing in higher powers isn't very commie of you, comrade. The only power is the state. Now run along and mind your labor.
Diminishing others is neither humanist or divine, and while west hates Putin for restraining oligarchy, it's not a commie country, and you/us don't need to be a commie to denounce evil.
The Spanish Civil War is actually slightly inaccurate. The Communist Party were sided with the Liberal Republicans instead of the revolutionaries - like the anarchists, and other socialists - and later prosecuted those revolutionaries and accused them of being fascists while a lot of them were still in the frontlines fighting actual fascists. The Communist Party were just serving the interests of the USSR, which at that point wanted a liberal government in Spain (due to their relation to France, if I recall correctly) and not a workers' revolution.
This is why campism is the biggest pitfall on the left. It's tempting to let others do your thinking for you, but this is where it leads.
What can drag Google to learn more about tankies fucking up Catalonia?
The Marxist was the only one who gave the anarchist guns, tanks, and planes. But no, they're surely a bigger threat than the liberal and fascist.
Surely giving the gun to the fascist is a better decision. They'll just shoot themselves in the foot... Right?
They eventually do. Fascism encourages corruption and incompetence, social division and the fragmentation of non-governmental movements, local dissidents and autonomies. Mussolini was so incompetent that not only was Italy eventually invaded by the Allies and lost its sovereignty to the German Reich, but Benito himself was imprisoned, despite his escape he didn't make it to Switzerland and was hanged by Communist partisans. Hitler, on the other hand, also encouraged corruption and division within his own structures to prevent people from allying against him or creating opposition. Hitler himself was an incompetent idiot who interfered in the work of his generals. To the end, Adolf believed he could win the war, and when he realised the shit he had created, he shot himself. Fascists aren't smart or competent enough, they often rely heavily on people who can do things and who are bribed by the fascists to work with them. Hitler often used Göring's upper class position and connections with prominent aristocrats to get his ideas through, as Hitler himself was just a peasant born in a village with little education and was even homeless for a time. Hitler relied heavily on people more competent than him in important positions to get what he wanted, because he could do shit on his own.