Except it took almost 5 decades to get back to the status they had with Spain by the time US came. In the meantime, the democracy reached was regressed.
Ah, blinkers must be on sale. You also reduce many years of struggle in many nations to the non-aggression pact, and somehow manage to conclude that the US alone defeated (or “raped”, in your charming vernacular) fascism. No accounting for the Spanish Civil War, or how communists were the core of domestic resistance to fascism in multiple countries (and were part of anti-fascist movements in non-fascist countries, like the US and the UK) - just the non-aggression pact. No reckoning of the 4.3 million Germans who died on the Eastern Front (vs. 1 million on the Western Front) - just the non-aggression pact (to say nothing of non-communists who fought against the Axis powers).
This is whitewashing of history, and no reasonable person should stand for it. The US was a supporting player in the European Theater; no shame in that. The Cold War is over, you can let the propaganda go.
See above - purge or no purge, the Soviets (and the Chinese, as well) were very, very good at killing fascists. I would argue that it’s the only thing of value Communists-as-Communists ever did well, in fact.
You say you don’t have a blinkered view of history, but all you want to talk about is the Soviet government in 1940. Doesn’t quite add up, does it?
Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss, then.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
You say you don’t have a blinkered view of history, but all you want to talk about is the Soviet government in 1940. Doesn’t quite add up, does it?
[/QUOTE]
It does if you are looking at this from the perspective of the only major country that the Communist party had full control of, as well as the country that was pretty much the torch bearer for Communism during that time. Certainly, you are right that there were communist parties in many other countries (even the US had/has one), but they weren’t exactly on the same level as the Soviet Union.
Well you have to understand, the US had this very professional study by experts and a couple of SCOTUS decisions proving, PROVING I tell you, that these poor brown Catholic peoples in Puerto Rico and the Phillippines were unprepared for self rule and could hurt ourselves if we tried to; why we didn’t even speak English!
Though to be fair, the Autonomic Charter is oversold. It was a desperate Ave Maria move to see if they could get the moderates in the island to NOT join the Cubans and Filipinos in rebelling, and the parliamentary democracy as such lasted like, weeks – most of which was spent by the monarchist Autonomist majority in screwing the republican Autonomists out of the concessions they had got in the run-up compromise – before martial law was decreed because the war began. To top it off it was passed by decree and never actually enacted by the Spanish Parliament (it had a provision that if it was, then it would require local consent to alter it) so as it actually existed it could be withdrawn at the stroke of a pen… and it was.
(And I don’t see it surviving Primo or Franco either in that alternate history…)
The context was communist contributions to defeating fascism. If one wants to focus on the Soviet Union in particular, that’s fine, to a point…but that means talking about Soviet support for the Spanish Republicans, Soviet support for Czechoslovakia, and how the Soviets did the bulk of the fighting against the Axis Powers in Europe.
If you just want to talk about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, as though it negates everything any communist did to fight fascism, you’re blinkered.
I think the point was that the Soviets only directly confronted Nazi Germany because they had no choice. Up to that point, their actions had been either more circumspect or had pretty much been aligned with Germany’s (invasion of Poland for instance). At best you can say that the Soviets, who were pretty much the leaders of the Communist world in 1940 had a pretty mixed record wrt combating fascism represented by Nazi Germany.
I don’t think anyone is denying the Soviets contribution to defeating Germany in WWII. I actually see the swing more the other way these days by trying to give all or at least most of the credit to the Soviet Union wrt defeating Germany and minimizing the roles played by the US and UK. That pendulum seems to swing back and forth constantly. I think that both views (i.e. that the US did it all or that the USSR did it all) are ‘blinkered’ view points.
Just like everybody else.
The Soviets supported the opposite side from the Germans in Spain, and in Czechoslovakia, and opposed the Anschluss. If they had a mixed record, well, so did everybody else.
Saying the US defeated fascism is denying the Soviet (and British, and Canadian, and Australian, and…) contribution, and that was the claim made in this thread.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
Just like everybody else.
[/QUOTE]
Um…not exactly. The British and French had a choice…they could have continued to appease Germany even after they drew the line at Poland. They CHOSE not to. The US had a choice as well…we could have stopped supporting the UK and later the Soviets and stayed neutral. Certainly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Germany’s declaration of war our options narrowed, but realistically we didn’t HAVE to fight Germany, especially had we withdrawn our material support and pulled in the Navy. Yeah, that’s not likely but it’s a bit different than the full-on invasion that brought the Soviets into the war against Germany. They had zero choices, unless surrender was an option. When Barbarossa kicked off it was them or Germany.
They also had a secret research and development with the Germans to develop tanks and a full on alliance in defeating Poland. Their mixed record was much more mixed than ‘everybody else’. No point trying to whitewash this. The US had a few trade deals with Nazi Germany and the others were more guilty of lack of spine in confronting them, but the Russians actively engaged with them, ironic as that seems in hindsight.
As I said, I think both views are ‘blinkered’. It took the efforts of all of the allies to defeat both Germany and Japan.
Not exactly. That led to the Phoney War, when the British and French did nothing, until the German invasion of France gave them no choice.
A “bit” different, sure.
Mixed is mixed.
Absolutely.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
Not exactly. That led to the Phoney War, when the British and French did nothing, until the German invasion of France gave them no choice.
[/QUOTE]
Well, they did declare war. The point is that they didn’t have to…they chose to. Russia, on the other hand, got pre-emptively invaded, so there was no choice there. THEIR choice was basically a non-aggression treaty with Germany, a secret treaty with Germany for developing tank technology and a split of Poland between them and to stay out of the rest.
Well, there are degrees. I think that the Soviets were at one end of the extreme for ‘mixed’ and most of the allies at the other. If you want to say that it’s equivalent I’ll just agree to disagree.
France and the UK were obligated by treaty, though they did the bare minimum in living up to them.
The Munich Agreement is at least as bad as anything the Soviets were up, save the invasion of Poland, and Germany hardly needed Soviet help in order to conquer Poland.
What are you talking about? Pre-invasion protection or post-invasion intervention? Most countries want the former; they obviously would prefer to avoid being invaded rather than having an invasion repelled (or worse, not repelled).
Do you have any examples of a country receiving UN protection because of a threat of invasion?
Sorry, that should read “worse than”, not “at least as bad as”.
[QUOTE=Human Action]
France and the UK were obligated by treaty, though they did the bare minimum in living up to them.
[/QUOTE]
As you indicated with your comment about the Munch Agreement their views on treaties were…flexible. I agree it wasn’t a shining example of the allies resolve in combating Nazi Germany, but my point was that it was still a choice on their part whether they would abide by the treaty or not.
It was pretty bad, agreed, but they didn’t actively help Germany invade and annex Czechoslovakia, just stood by and allowed Germany to do so. Yes, that’s certainly bad and I agree that it qualifies them as ‘mixed’…I just don’t think it makes them equivalent to the Soviets who DID actively aid Germany in crushing and partitioning Poland. YMMV of course.
At any rate I think we’ve wandered far afield from the OP so I’ll leave it there.
Well, of course they would.
No, I don’t. I don’t know if any applied for it, though.
No it wasn’t. Nobody had said that. You just claimed it had been said.
DerekMichaels00’s comment was: America’s role in the world is the greatest force for good mankind has known. It raped fascism and communism, as it will do radical Islamic terrorism.
Extreme (I, for one, called him on it) but if you take away the hyperbole, he said America fought against fascism and communism and won. And that’s generally true (neither is completely gone but both are on the decline). He didn’t say the United States won WWII single-handed. He didn’t say the Soviet Union didn’t fight against Germany in WWII.
You responded to his comment by specifically bringing up World War II: I feel like you’re undervaluing all the work communists did to fight fascism. The U.S. were late to that particular party.
Several people (including me) responded to your claim by pointing out the communists were still working with the fascists at a time when the United States was sending supplies to the people fighting the fascists. Unlike the Soviets, there was no point when the United States was helping the Nazis. Regardless of which side did more work against the Nazis, it’s indisputable who did it first. It was the communists who came late to that particular party.
As for your later argument about non-Soviet communists working against the fascists, can you tell me who they were? Did Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh have cells that were operating in Germany?
No, it doesn’t. But you were the one who chose to bring that particular period of history up in this debate.
Again, Stalin was ready to go to war with Germany in 1938 over Czechoslovakia when France and Britain handed the country over to Germany. It’s hard to be more directly confrontational than that, and it’s not surprising that the Soviet Union changed its foreign policy to one of rapprochement with Germany afterwards.
Well, there was the UN peacekeeping mission in the Sinai separating the Egyptians from the Israelis, which was I suppose intended to prevent invasion in either direction.
That mission did not exactly end in a manner that inspired confidence in the soundness of UN protection, though: the Egyptians asked them to leave, they left (without consulting either the General Assembly or the Security Council), and war ensued.