For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
Imagine there's a Western backed genocide happening, possible WW3 around the corner, and fascism is coming to power everywhere. And you made video after video about why MLs are bad.
I shouldn't care, but I used to really like BadMouse.
Also imagine being English and making an hour long video attacking an Iraqi communist.
For any of our questioning friends:
It was a non-aggression pact signed to buy time for the USSR to migrate their industry from the border with Poland to deeper in land in the mountains. It was the last non-aggression pact signed with them AFTER every other western nation had already signed one.
It was also only signed after France and the UK refused the USSR's offer of pre-emptively stopping the Nazis from taking Poland. The USSR offered a million troops to pre-emptively invade Germany if France and the UK would agree to it. After France and the UK refused, the non-aggression treaty was signed to buy time, they used this time to create a buffer zone, move all of their industrial factories (concentrated on the border of Poland) into the mountains, and to further industrialise and modernise the army. Moving the factories was critical to the Soviets defeating fascism, had they not have been moved then they would have been taken in the invasion that later occurred.
Here is also an excellent dinner speech from Albert Einstein in which he mentions this pact.
From this post, which is a good read that I highly recommend: https://hexbear.net/post/276014?scrollToComments=false
I show them the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance and explain that the west walked out on the collective security the Soviets were trying to set up. The alternative to the MR Pact was the Soviet people being used as yet another meatshield by the west for Nazi expansionism.
Obviously the anticommunist libs then (and today) were incredibly disappointed to see that opportunity to let Hitler do their dirty work slip away from them. Instead, Uncle Joe and Molotov turned the tables on those frogs and finally forced the west off their asses to oppose Hitler.
Yeha I agree with this interpretation but choose not to frame it in an adversarial way. Libs have a defensive reaction if you frame the west as intentionally doing something bad, whereas framing it as making a mistake(missing the opportunity to pre-emptively stop Germany) makes them take on board and accept the information.
A lot of my interaction with liberals revolves around the baseline of not tripping a defensive reaction because it makes them mentally shut down and close up. I need them to be open or else they don't take on new information they haven't seen before.
There's also the point that the vast majority of land the Soviet Union "occupied" was land that Poland took after the Polish–Soviet War when Poland invaded the Soviet Union, so if anything, it was the Soviet Union freeing western Ukraine from Polish occupation.
Ask them if Lvov/Lviv/Lwow is a Polish city or a Ukrainian city. The only non-fascist/non-anticommunist reason to object to the non-aggression pact is if they're a Polish revanchist who thinks western Ukraine should be part of Poland. But I suspect the vast majority of Western libs will simultaneously object to the pact but still think that Lviv is a Ukrainian city. How a major city under Polish administration is supposed to somehow transfer over to Ukrainian/Soviet administration is anyone's guess.
Yeah but if you mention this on reddit you get revanchist weirdos show up and create a 30 comments response chain argument point after point. I prefer to leave it out because it just completely prevents their participation in the conversation. If they want to argue, they have to argue about stronger shit that they can't bog down in walls of text nobody wants to read.
Redditors absorb the short sharp arguments better. When stuff devolves into loooooong replyguy comment chains they stop absorbing the information.
Not a really powerful argument knowing that the USSR invaded Baltic countries and Finland too. Not that I think that's bad, ridding those countries of their capitalist governments is something that had to be done, as well as putting some land between the Nazis and the Soviets in the upcoming war (libs try to understand the implication of the Great European Plain in soviet policy in WW2 challenge level: impossible).
To me, the more powerful argument is that all of those countries were too weak to fight the Nazis, so the alternatives to soviet occupation were either collaboration with Nazis or Nazi invasion. I still haven't gotten a meaningful reply to that, other than "Nazis took our lives but Ruzzians took our souls" russophobia nazi-adjacent bullshit.
The difference is said Baltic countries and Finland did not occupy land recently annexed from other nations. I think the point about the Polish territory being occupied is actually really useful because it appeals to the kneejerk sensibilities that make libs defend Ukraine. It can make them question themselves, at least more than not bringing it up.
There is something particularly satisfying about asking "so Vilnius not being part of Poland currently is evil?". The mere fact that Lithuania's modern capital today was under Polish occupation is a stark point to make.
Self-proclaimed Ukrainian sovereignty respecters justifying the Polish annexation of Western Ukraine: