Posts
Anti imperialism? How did they become the largest country on earth?
Imperialism is not when big country, believe it or not. Imperialism is about having peripheral colonies from which you extract raw materials and where the citizens have fewer rights, and a core which benefits from the labor of the rest of the periphery. The USSR engaged in the opposite by providing raw materials and energy inputs to the Eastern-Block countries at subsidized prices precisely with the intention of helping them industrialize and develop. As an example, the GDP per capita of Estonia was 20% higher than that of the Russian republic during the USSR.
Respect of minorities?
Yes. Ukraine got its borders and political representation for the first time in history during Soviet rule. You may be surprised to find that Rosa Luxembourg argued against this, there are some fun letters between her and Lenin where the latter argued in favour of supporting the national identity of Ukrainians. This was carried out as soon as the revolution took place, in the Korenizatsiya policy of boosting ethnic minorities once oppressed by the Russian empire. You may be surprised to learn that Stalin was the commissar for nationalities when the Russian Revolution happened. The communists elected a Georgian leader in 1925, unthinkable just 10 years prior.
All republics in the USSR had the right to determine their own languages, and people had a right to an education in these languages up to university level (not always included). The majority of books and newspapers printed in areas with national languages different to Russian were in said languages (Ukrainian, Kazakh, Armenian, Georgian, Estonian…). You can get informed about this in Albert Szymanski’s “human rights in the Soviet Union”. There were big mistakes during a few years due to hysteria against Nazism and Japanese invasion (see deportations of Crimean Tatars and Koreans), but other than that the USSR has a mostly impeccable record in this regard. Compare that to France murdering 1 million Algerians in the 1960s in the Algerian war of independence, or with Occitan language becoming almost extint in the 20th century.
Industrial development? Yes, current Russia
The USSR was at the time the second largest economy in the world, idk why you compare it with modern capitalist Russia, of course capitalism destroyed the progress achieved by socialists.
Please go through my comment and tell me which part of it is a lie, all information is well-sourced from Wikipedia. You’re just proving you haven’t done even the most cursory reading on the topic beyond reddit comments.
I’ve replied to the whole “Nazis and Soviets were allies” in another comment in this post, I encourage you to read it and reply. Thank you!
Terrible analysis based on cold-war lies. The USSR for example saw a massive reduction in the wealth and power of leaders compared to what came after and what existed before:
Tell me again how Che Guevara and Rosa Luxembourg were chasing power when they sacrificed their lives for the betterment of others
To be fair, there was excess repression during the late 1930s in the USSR, but people massively inflate the numbers and won’t ever tell that only about 1/4 of prisoners in the prison system (whose acronym was GULAG) were actually politically motivated. People also don’t understand that the harsh conditions in Soviet prisons were due to a Soviet-wide famine caused by the Nazi aggression:
the Nazis would have fallen either way
Perhaps in the long run, not without genociding the entirety of Eastern Europe first. Not an argument to me.
received massive assistance
England received far more assistance from Lend-Lease, they weren’t the ones who won the war.
human wave tactics
Literally Nazi propaganda of “Asiatic hordes”, the number of combat casualties in the eastern front isn’t that different between Nazis and Soviets, Soviets sustained more casualties simply because the Soviet industry had had 10 years of development compared to the 100 years of the German one.
the USSR at first joined forces with the Nazis
It takes a lot of information to dispel misinformation, so forgive me but I’m gonna paste a comment that I wrote some time ago responding to the whole “Soviets sided with the Nazis” phrase that is often propagated on Lemmy. Feel free to respond to it, I’d love to engage with you in its contents:
The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.” Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn’t want to. By the logic of “invading Poland” being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.
As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won’t find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.
The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of nowadays when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:
“Polish” territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:
The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?
Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.
All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
“One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this