Yep, that’s why Hitler is regarded as the ultimate evil, the settler colonialism.
The Anschluss and the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia were both justified under the guise of protecting and uniting ethnic Germans in the regions, Hitler even said he’d totally, for realsies stop after that. But I wouldn’t expect .ml’ers to care about anything that happened before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact broke down.
A few weeks after the Wehrmacht’s March 1939 occupation of all Czechoslovakia, and despite increasing doubts about Western intentions, Stalin again approached the Franco-British powers.
On 16 April 1939, he submitted a formal proposition: a three-power military pact with the obvious goal of deterring Nazi aggression.
Stalin’s diplomatic proposal mirrored the agreement in place prior to the First World War, in which Britain, France and Russia were bound together in an alliance directed against the German and Austro-Hungarian empires.
Had Stalin’s approach been accepted, it can only have changed the course of history – as such a union would have ensured, right from the beginning in the event of a conflict, that Hitler faced a nightmare war on two fronts.
This final Soviet offer of alliance with the West was snubbed, however, with the British in particular treating Moscow with disregard. Strong anti-Bolshevik feelings were widespread amongst the conservatives in the British government, and with Chamberlain himself.
Buddy, I’m not going to defend the actions of Western powers during the build up to World War II. I agree with you that an antifascist alliance should have been formed and could have stopped Hitler much sooner and with much less death.
I do find it interesting that the article you provided makes no mention of Soviet annexation (Imperialism? Colonization? Liberation? Let me know which hyperspecific term for invading another country I should use) of the pre-Brest-Litovsk territory they lost.
I took issue in the first place because you seemed to imply that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is okay because it’s specifically annexation, and not some other flavor of invading and taking over someone’s country, and I’m opposed to that regardless of what one calls it.
Good thing Hitler just wanted to annex the Sudetenland and not colonize it, he would have been a pretty bad guy otherwise
No Hitler did settler colonialism. In Europe. He threw the natives in ovens and stole their house.
That’s why Hitler is regarded as the ultimate evil. He did settler colonialism against white people.
Yep, that’s why Hitler is regarded as the ultimate evil, the settler colonialism.
The Anschluss and the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia were both justified under the guise of protecting and uniting ethnic Germans in the regions, Hitler even said he’d totally, for realsies stop after that. But I wouldn’t expect .ml’ers to care about anything that happened before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact broke down.
Remember when Russia and Hitler teamed up to split Europe?
Shocking how the impetus for the war in Ukraine is almost identical for Hitler needing to invade the Sudetenland.
Anyways, can we stay on topic about
RampartIsrael?I can’t believe Geneva is claiming it was “white genocide/colonialism” that is why Hitler is evil.
I mean I can believe they’re doing it, given the account is a propaganda front … but god damn that’s wild.
Like this?
Buddy, I’m not going to defend the actions of Western powers during the build up to World War II. I agree with you that an antifascist alliance should have been formed and could have stopped Hitler much sooner and with much less death.
I do find it interesting that the article you provided makes no mention of Soviet annexation (Imperialism? Colonization? Liberation? Let me know which hyperspecific term for invading another country I should use) of the pre-Brest-Litovsk territory they lost.
You seemed to imply that the USSR gladly made a peace treaty with Hitler at the onset instead of trying to gather allies to fight Hitler first.
Imperialism. Unless the USSR expelled or tried to exterminate the citizens of conquered territory, that would be settler colonialism.
For more information on the terminology and why it’s important: On ‘Arab Colonialism’
I’ll give that a watch, thanks.
I took issue in the first place because you seemed to imply that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is okay because it’s specifically annexation, and not some other flavor of invading and taking over someone’s country, and I’m opposed to that regardless of what one calls it.