Quick question, who formed an alliance with Hitler? Stalin or Roosevelt?
The answer to this question is “Mussolini and Tojo”. Several European countries signed a “Non Aggression Pact” before the USSR, and then the USSR signed a “Non Aggression Pact” to buy time because they knew an invasion was inevitable.
(yeah I’m posting wikipedia, I don’t feel like spending the rest of my sunday night hunting down the specific books on libgen that are cited on each page, suffice it to say these are events which did occur, and even English Wikipedia doesn’t deny them, the problem with a lot of these pacts is that they are named different things by different countries)
What makes people freak out about molotov ribbentrop is the agreement to partition states. the reason for this is because the USSR needed time to deconstruct factories and move them east before the luftwaffe could bomb them. The USSR made a calculated risk that by dividing poland they could move the future war front far west of where it would otherwise be if they refused a non aggression pact and just got invaded right away, and at the same time, move their war industry far east of the war front. Of course by making this calculated risk they gave an easy propaganda victory to all bourgeois nations who experience collective amnesia about every other non aggression pact, as well as their categorical refusal to enter into collective security against fascism with the “bolshevik menace” in the 1930s. It is somewhat similar to how USSR tried to join NATO in the 50s and was refused. The bourgeois nations never wanted collective security or peace with the USSR, even when it was on the table. In particular the USSR only invaded finland because it was the most convenient route to invade the USSR, and the Finnish (a future axis power) wouldn’t sell them the land that the nazis eventually used to invade.
What makes people freak out about molotov ribbentrop is the agreement to partition states.
Made even “funnier” given that the Munich Agreement ALSO included a partition agreement: Germany got the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. Truly just hypocrisy to single out the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact like they do
They’re also trying to argue against an economic system based on something that a guy who has been dead for seventy tears did almost a century ago, when our critique of their farcical imitation of an economy is very much grounded in this week’s politics.
It would be sick if we actually judged Capitalism as a mode of production by the Late Victorian genocides committed by England, Belgium, and other Capitalist/Colonialist powers, but we know that will never happen.
from the comments
The answer to this question is “Mussolini and Tojo”. Several European countries signed a “Non Aggression Pact” before the USSR, and then the USSR signed a “Non Aggression Pact” to buy time because they knew an invasion was inevitable.
could somebody post sources for those?
(yeah I’m posting wikipedia, I don’t feel like spending the rest of my sunday night hunting down the specific books on libgen that are cited on each page, suffice it to say these are events which did occur, and even English Wikipedia doesn’t deny them, the problem with a lot of these pacts is that they are named different things by different countries)
Four-Power Pact (worth noting france did not ratify)
Hitler Pilsudski Pact
Anglo German Naval Agreement
Anti Comintern Pact since this was between Japan/Germany there’s less amnesia about it
German/British and German/French 1938 non aggression pacts are usually just called the Munich Agreement in English language sources to obfuscate what was happening
German Romanian Economical Treaty March 1939
German Ultimatum to Lithuania in March 1939 seems a bit unfair to characterize as a treaty tbh
“Pact of Steel” with Italy 1939 Now THIS is actually a military alliance pact, which is what people keep characterizing molotov-ribbentrop as
Danish-German non aggression pact May 1939 this one isn’t wikipedia
Germany Estonia N-A-Pact June 7th 1939
German-Latvian N-A-Pact June 7th 1939
Molotov Ribbentrop Pact
Also it’s worth noting that even though the USA never signed a non aggression pact with nazi germany, american capitalists were quite fond of funding nazis, doing trade with nazis, and even hosting nazi party rallies in the United States (such as one in madison square garden in 1939). And there was even a fascist attempt at a coup against FDR, that was thwarted by smedley butler being a whistleblower.
What makes people freak out about molotov ribbentrop is the agreement to partition states. the reason for this is because the USSR needed time to deconstruct factories and move them east before the luftwaffe could bomb them. The USSR made a calculated risk that by dividing poland they could move the future war front far west of where it would otherwise be if they refused a non aggression pact and just got invaded right away, and at the same time, move their war industry far east of the war front. Of course by making this calculated risk they gave an easy propaganda victory to all bourgeois nations who experience collective amnesia about every other non aggression pact, as well as their categorical refusal to enter into collective security against fascism with the “bolshevik menace” in the 1930s. It is somewhat similar to how USSR tried to join NATO in the 50s and was refused. The bourgeois nations never wanted collective security or peace with the USSR, even when it was on the table. In particular the USSR only invaded finland because it was the most convenient route to invade the USSR, and the Finnish (a future axis power) wouldn’t sell them the land that the nazis eventually used to invade.
Made even “funnier” given that the Munich Agreement ALSO included a partition agreement: Germany got the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. Truly just hypocrisy to single out the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact like they do
They’re also trying to argue against an economic system based on something that a guy who has been dead for seventy tears did almost a century ago, when our critique of their farcical imitation of an economy is very much grounded in this week’s politics.
It would be sick if we actually judged Capitalism as a mode of production by the Late Victorian genocides committed by England, Belgium, and other Capitalist/Colonialist powers, but we know that will never happen.