I’m not really sure what the snark is for, I’m asking you a genuine question because you seem to be genuinely engaging and doing actual research.
You listed a number of sources but I didn’t quite get what exactly you were replying, so that’s why I asked for a clarification. It’s a genuine attempt at conversation :(
Nice dig! I found a Russian source which says the same: https://hrono.ru/sobyt/1900war/1939pol.php
So to clarify here, this is indeed used for navigation. At the time no GPS existed of course, so pilots had to rely on either radio signals or visual clues on the ground to tell them where they are. The radio signals, if the pilot could tell where they were coming from, would indeed help triangulate their location. Quite necessary, particularly in eastern Poland where German radio signals had a harder time reaching.
If the radio tower continually transmitted the requested callsign in between the other stuff, it would be easy to tell where the radio tower was. The Germans at this point expected the Soviets to help invade already as they had agreed upon. By mentioning “Minsk” a lot in the transmissions they effectively did the same thing, but a bit less overt. This allowed the Soviets to retain some element of surprise against the Poles.
On the 10th of September, the Nazis urged Molotov to begin the Soviet side of the invasion to uphold their end of the agreement, but Molotov held off due to the war with Japan. This gave them a convenient reason to wait until Polish resistance had been broken before going in. One week later, war was declared and the Soviets invaded.
I’m a bit confused as to what you’re trying to say here. You seem to be supporting my point that in 39, the communists were primarily anti-imperialist, which by 41 had pivoted back to being primarily anti-reich. They obviously didn’t like the reich in that time, that would be ridiculous. But they did in some ways echo some of the pro-German propaganda (eg blaming London for the war).
Your first source also confirms what I’m saying about the confusion caused by the war and the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. The assumption was that the imperialist west would ally with the Nazis and that the Soviets would be fighting the fascists. Yet in a span of 2-3 weeks, the reality was that the Nazis had allied with the Soviets and that the imperialists were fighting the fascists instead. Hence the mentioned confusion and the lack of heterogeneity in the response; various reasons were invented to support the Soviets in this new arrangement (quite interestingly a fair few of those I’ve seen mentioned here actually, e.g. the “protecting the Poles” line, but at the time it was also argued by some that the USSR had a right to take back those lands from Poland. Though none of them seemed to deny an invasion had taken place altogether like some here are suggesting).
the daily reality of the Forbidden Zone pushed then more rapidly to a more anti‐[Reich] position than their comrades elsewhere.
Yeah this was my point. It took a bit for various communist groups to pivot back to being primarily anti-reich. Those who suffered directly under the Nazis turned faster, e.g. those in northern France took the anti-reich position before the British communists did (they remained more anti-imperialist aimed at the UK, until the Soviets were invaded).
The comment you linked did not address the direct military collaboration, e.g. the Luftwaffe being coordinated from Minsk. So please, do spell it out. You can’t, because you never did address it.
I did address those.
Please cite this directly because I’m not reading it in your replies.
you’re trying to invent a narrative where the Soviets, for a very short period, were actually super pro-Nazi and totally fine with them
Here’s the thing: this is exactly what the communist parties outside Russia also struggled with. Stalin made a deal with Hitler. Molotov literally said “Fascism? Fascism is purely a matter of taste”.
For the first two weeks of the war, the communist parties felt conflicted but ultimately didn’t need to change their stance. They were anti-fascist after all, and the UK and France had now declared war on the Nazis so this received the CPs support. Maurice Thorez even joined the French army (for a couple weeks until he left to go to Moscow).
But then, Stalin invaded Poland, and they met the Nazis as allies in the middle. Stalin publicly came out in support of Hitler’s “peace programme”. This caused some serious conflicts in the CPs in the west. Suddenly the logic shifted:
So surely, it was better to focus on being anti-imperialist, focused against the UK and France instead of focusing on Germany.
You’ll find many socialist and communist newspapers started putting out pro-German propaganda (and some were banned for it). This only changed after 41, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.
The Soviets were never “totally fine” with the Nazis. But for a time they were happy to see the Nazis turned towards the west, and they saw the opportunity to get some benefits for themselves too.
You did not address the fact that the Soviets directly collaborated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk. You did not address the fact that the Soviets had already geared up for an invasion on the Polish border.
Don’t claim you did when anyone can read you didn’t.
You misrepresent the facts surrounding Brest. The article you referred to does these things to: omit the facts that don’t match your narrative. You ignore historical context and have now resorted to putting up a strawman regarding which country did most to stop the Nazis, which was never the point I challenged you on (the historical fact that the Soviets did indeed agree to divide Poland with the Nazis and collaborated on the invasion).
There’s no point in continuing this conversation if you keep failing to address these key points that directly undermine your narrative.
Explain to me why the Soviets agreed on a sphere of influence that went straight down the middle of a sovereign country. Explain to me why the Soviets coordinated militarily with the Luftwaffe during the invasion, even before the Soviets entered the war. You keep incessantly dodging these questions because the facts do not fit your false narrative.
The UK and France weren’t ready for war either. As already mentioned (which you also keep ignoring) the BEF wasn’t deployable before Poland fell, and France believed they weren’t able to attack and defeat Germany yet. Despite that, they declared war.
The Soviets could have unilaterally guaranteed the Poles. Such a guarantee, on top of the Allied one, could have deterred Hitler for longer. The Soviet army could at least have given the Poles a fighting chance. The Germans would have been less effective without the military assistance from the Soviets. Instead, they did prepare the Red Army for war; one against Poland.
The Germans weren’t ready for a two-front war yet. With no eastern front left, they were able to break through France and capitulate them. With the knowledge that the Germans would be fighting in Russia, France may have successfully invaded the Nazis.
My point is that your link claiming the Soviets didn’t agree to invade Poland with the Nazis is historical revisionism, blatantly ignores facts and context and just does not hold up under mild scrutiny. It’s literally what I stated in my first comment.
When the Soviets did not manage to get an alliance with the west (the west still deemed the communists a huge threat as well), they did genuinely attempt to ally with the Nazis. And that’s what initially happened. Stalin didn’t believe the alliance would last of course, but ultimately he too was surprised by how early Hitler invaded. Molotov even called fascism “a matter of taste”, to demonstrate the collaboration between the two nations at that point.
The “Phoney war” has always been a bit of a misnomer. Poland fell before the British expeditionary force could even be deployed. Later revealed French intelligence showed that France severly overestimated the German strength on the French border. They didn’t press hard yet because they believed they wouldn’t be able to.
But they UK and France didn’t declare war for performative reasons. They stepped in, even if not immediately effectively, whereas the Soviets initially collaborated with the Nazis and waited to be attacked instead. They too could have unilaterally guaranteed Poland, yet chose not too. They spied an opportunity for themselves to regain lands lost to Poland in an earlier war instead and took it.
The Soviets arrived in Brest because that’s what they had agreed upon with the Nazis. The Nazis just stuck to their end of the deal. Your attempt to frame this as the Soviets “liberating” Brest from the Nazis is laughably inaccurate. There was no antagonism when the Soviets arrived.
The Nazis would have had to stay in Brest if the Soviets didn’t show up, because both parties also agreed to suppress any Polish resistance against either side. The Nazis suddenly leaving would have given an opening to Polish resistance.
The Soviets basically told Lithuania “we decided to divvy up eastern Europe with the Nazis. You are on our side of the demarcation line, and we already invaded Poland. Know what happens when you resist”. It was a direct threat, not a promise of an alliance.
The UK and France guaranteed Polish independence and declared war on Germany when Hitler invaded. The Soviets could have done the same, but didn’t. Instead, they joined forces with the Nazis. They were just as ineffective at stopping the Nazis as the Allies were, when he wasn’t directly helping them out. Once war was declared that picture shifts, and the Soviets delivered an immense effort to stop the Nazis, most notably their sacrifice in human lives (something that must be respected and remembered). But before the war that was very different, despite attempts to minimize the Soviet collaboration by revisionists.
What’s historical revisionism is claiming the parade to celebrate the Nazis being pushed out of areas of Poland by the Soviets was a celebration of allyship
The Nazis took Brest initially, despite it being past the demarcation line. When the Soviets arrived, the Nazis voluntarily withdrew and both armies saluted one another. They then held a joint victory parade before the Nazis returned westwards, back behind the demarcation line.
The Nazis definitely weren’t “pushed out”, that’s BS. As much as you say that the west had Nazi sympathies, they never actively invaded a third nation together, collaborating militarily, and divided the spoils. But you conveniently forgot to address the military cooperation between the Nazis and the Soviets during their joint invasion of Poland, because it directly undermines your false narrative.
You’re also conveniently ignoring that the Soviets “accidentally” let slip what their secret protocols with Germany entailed to the Lithuanians, in order to pressure them into joining with the Soviets after the invasion of Poland. The Polish distaste for Russia also may have had something to do with the decades of Russian imperialism the Polish suffered from.
Undermining alliance talks is something all the great powers did. The Polish Intermarium was sabotated by the Soviets for example. That’s not unique to the Allies in the slightest.
The Soviets absolutely did agree to invade, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism. The source you linked tactically omits several facts that completely undermine the narrative presented, such as the fact that the Red Army coordinated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk during the Nazi invasion, that the agreed borders of the “spheres of influence” split a sovereign nation down the middle (which is impossible if Poland had remained sovereign), the joint military victory parade in Brest, etcetera.
Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle?
If there was a genuine concern the Soviets could have guaranteed Polish independence against the Nazis. They did not, instead they jointly agreed to invade and divide the country.
The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
The UK and France declared war 2 days after Hitler invaded Poland (Hitler did not expect the UK to guarantee Poland, causing him to delay the invasion by a week while he deliberated on whether to go forward). Military spending in both the UK and France was significantly ramped up after Hitler first started showing aggression, but neither believed themselves to be ready for a war. War requires preparation, and they weren’t so delusional to believe they’d be able to avoid war forever. What neither the UK nor France expected however was that Nazi Germany’s war machine would ramp up significantly faster than their own.
So you have no sources, just vacuous claims.
Don’t waste people’s time then.
They’re clearly sourced on Wikipedia. Your turn.
Can you source that claim? The estimates I can find are between 0.8 and 3.8 million. There’s outliers going up to 5-6, but I don’t know where your 10 million comes from.
There’s literally an entire section on relief efforts on Wikipedia, with plentiful sources (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943). It also clearly explains the aid wasn’t enough and inadequately delivered, meaning it wasn’t effective (especially initially). But it’s not true that they did nothing at all.
You literally just downplayed the death toll of the Great Famine. And Churchill was a racist dick, but he didn’t purposefully genocide the Indians. He didn’t give much of a shit, but relief efforts were sent and ultimately did arrive. It was horrible nonetheless, no doubt about that, but it pales in comparison to what happened in China.
Britain did attempt to mitigate it, but natural disasters prevented them from doing so effectively as they took out the rail lines to Bengal. Ultimately the famine lasted 1-2 years.
But mate, not even China (and the CCP) denies that Zedong primarily fucked up here (translated from http://www.gov.cn/test/2008-06/23/content_1024934_2.htm):
However, due to insufficient experience in socialist construction and insufficient understanding of the laws of economic development and the basic conditions of China’s economy, and more importantly, due to Comrade Mao Zedong and many leading comrades at the central and local levels, who became complacent and eager for quick results in the face of victory, and exaggerated the role of subjective will and effort, they rashly launched the “Great Leap Forward” and the rural people’s commune movement without serious investigation, research, or pilot projects. This led to a serious prevalence of Leftist errors, characterized by high targets, blind command, exaggeration, and a “communist style.” From the end of 1958 to the early stages of the Lushan meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee in July 1959, Comrade Mao Zedong and the Party Central Committee diligently led the entire Party in correcting the errors that had already been recognized. However, in the later stages of the Lushan Conference, Comrade Mao Zedong mistakenly launched a criticism of Comrade Peng Dehuai and subsequently launched a Party-wide “anti-Rightist” struggle. The resolution of the Eighth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee regarding the so-called “anti-Party clique of Peng Dehuai, Huang Kecheng, Zhang Wentian, and Zhou Xiaozhou” was completely wrong. Politically, this struggle severely damaged democratic life within the Party, from the Central Committee down to the grassroots. Economically, it interrupted the process of correcting Leftist errors, prolonging their existence. Primarily due to the mistakes of the “Great Leap Forward” and the “anti-Rightist” campaign, coupled with natural disasters and the Soviet government’s treacherous breach of contract, my country’s national economy suffered severe difficulties from 1959 to 1961, causing significant losses to the country and the people.
And you may call 36 million bullshit, but that is the historical consensus. We know from official sources that the population in 1961 is 15 million lower than in 1959, but that difference also assumes no population growth, suggesting a much higher death toll as the Chinese population was growing very quickly at the time. And that’s the Chinese estimating it:
It’s next to impossible to get an exact number because the statistics were being manipulated by local governments at the time to look less bad. There’s enough reason to believe Zedong didn’t know the full extent of the famine (he seemed to believe it was ~5 million), because he too was fed bullshit from his underlings. So you may call it “Black book of bullshit” but I’m basing myself on sources from China, of people and institutions connected to the CCP.
I mean, Churchill was a massive racist. The famine in India killed approx. 2.1 million people.
But Zedong’s policies led to a famine that killed approx. 36 million peoole, literally 10-15 times worse. It’s nice that he grew his own veggies I guess but fuck me that’s an insane failure of policy. If you managed to fuck up so bad you end up killing 36 million, I think it’s fair to say you deserved the title of monster.
You’d have the same issue with this on Linux, no? It isn’t OS-specific.
EDIT: I meant in general. Software on Linux is also subject to the UKs temper tantrum laws, same as on Windows. The Nvidia driver is just an example, you can also just download the driver on Windows without needing their companion app.