I’m pointing out that the reference to a generation is to point out the US’s role, not any individuals alone.

What misinformation? OP certainly has a goal to share news for political reasons, and thus it technically is propaganda, but that doesn’t make it misinformation.

Haven’t seen anything pointing to OP being Chinese (nor would that be a problem), but it’s a good thing to hate the US Empire.

Edit: responding to your edit, there are a lot of us communists here on Lemmy because communists made Lemmy.

No, when referring to a generation as having saved the next generations from fascism, the credit is being assigned to that generation, not individuals. It isn’t about individual anti-fascists.

The soviets did not “split Poland” with the Nazis, the soviets only went in weeks after the Nazis did. Most of the area the Soviets took are areas in modern Lithuania and Ukraine. Poland had annexed them in the Polish-Soviet War and the Polish-Lithuanian War earlier. Katyn gets pinned on the Soviets because Goebbels reported on it and it became a useful story, but the execution method was distinctly Nazi, ie killing men, women, and children from behind into mass graves. The ammunition was German-produced in 1941, and the rope used to bind the hands of the victims was German made. It was entirely characteristc of Nazi execution methods and with Nazi equipment.

“Of 225 shells found in this grave, 205 are the German 1941 “Hasag” type, 17 are the German 1941 “Dürlach” type, 2 are of the unmarked 1930s Soviet type; and one is marked “B 1906.” Hence 98.67% of the shells are of 1941 German manufacture.”

The soviets and Poland indeed did not get along, at least not until Poland turned socialist. Poland had been engaging in wars of conquest in the preceding decades, killing Hungarians, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians, annexing their lands. Considering that the soviet union was a multi-national federation of socialist countries, it makes sense that there would be bad blood between them. After Poland turned socialist, it recieved large investments and skyrocketed in industrial output and quality of life metrics.

As for the purges, the need to investigate the party for traitors was legitimate. After the assassination of Kirov, a conspiracy against the soviet state was found, along with infiltration from fascists. Khrushchev did not improve the soviet union, but rather set the seeds for its dissolution. For more on the topic of Stalin, the early soviet period, and Khrushchev, see Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend.

What improved in the soviet union was the benefit of the decades of industrialization and planting the seeds for the future that existed in the 20s and 30s, fighting off the Nazis and saving the world from fascism, and recovery from that war. The early soviets had worked tirelessly to create a new world.

The USSR had steady and consistent economic growth, and provided free, high quality education and healthcare, full employment, cheap or free housing, and fantastic infrastructure and city planning. This rapid development resulted in dramatic democratization of society, reduced disparity, doubling of life expectancy, tripling of functional literacy rates to 99.9%, and much more. Living in the 1930s famine would not have been good, but it was the last major famine outside of wartime because the soviets ended famine in their countries.

Literacy rates, societal guarantees in the 1936 constitution, reports on the healthcare system over time, and more are good sources for these claims.

The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.

When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski’s Human Rights in the Soviet Union.

The truth, when judged based on historical evidence and contextualization, is that socialism was the best thing to happen to Russia in the last few centuries, and its absence has been devastating.

Capitalism brought with it skyrocketing poverty rates, drug abuse, prostitution, homelessness, crime rates, and lowered life expectancy. An estimated 7 million people died due to the dissolution of socialism in the USSR. A return to socialism is the only path forward for the post-soviet countries.

Returning to World War II, the soviets continued their preparatory work for war. It involved dramatic, rapid industrialization, which they needed to continue to close the industrial gap with Germany. Their rate of growth was higher than that of Germany, but in absolute terms were still lagging, so any bit of time they could buy was worth it. See The Soviets Expected It.

Returning to the KPD and SPD, the reason the SPD were so hated by the KPD is because the SPD aided the Nazis in killing communists. The SPD’s anti-communism aligned them with the Nazis, whom they found a common enemy. The SPD’s plan of voting for Hindenburg came true and failed spectacularly as Hitler took power anyways, proving the Communists correct, that the fascists needed to be fought directly. The SPD being killed by the Nazis for being too left wing is a direct result of their assistance with killing the communists first. See how the SPD betrayed the revolution.

As a side note, wikipedia is not a source. It is a compilation of sources at best, and at worst it can be wrong or misleading, lacking key context or mistranslating primary sources.

Pointing to individual soldiers as opposed to looking at broader movements and forces at play just obfuscates the concrete reality that the US Empire was very happy to sit out, loaning the allies weaponry, and profiting off the war. It wasn’t until Pearl Harbor that they really got involved, and the US Empire did so with the aim of establishing itself as a new imperial hegemon, a status it has today but is quickly losing.

Yes, they were kept isolated and under strict observance, then expelled. They were not given high positions en masse and protected. Adolf Heusinger, for example, was made head of NATO for his experience as a Nazi. Apel was the exception, not the rule, Heusinger was the rule, not the exception.

O7

Iran is fighting for a green new world

Yep, agreed! The electrification of global infrastructure is going to be massive going forward.

Unsurprising, and with no sign of stopping. It isn’t simply a matter of the US falling, but China is also rising in approval, and this gap is widening as the old imperialist world order is dying away and multilateralism is rising.

To be clear, the way the soviets treated the Nazis was entitely different from the way the US did. The soviets kept them under maximum security, paid them low wages, and kept them on the tightest leash possible. The US gave them high positions in government, sent many to countries like Canada and Argentina, and gave them leading roles in organizations like NATO.

The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

Churchill did not take the Nazis as a serious threat, and was horrified when FDR and Stalin made a joke about executing Nazis. Churchill starved millions to death in India in preventable ways, and had this to say about it:

I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.

Meanwhile, the soviet famine in the 1930s was the last major famine outside of wartime in the USSR, because collectivized farming achieved food security in a region where famine was common. As a consequence, life expectancy doubled:

The Nazis and soviets were never allies. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance, and the non-aggression pact between the soviets and the Nazis was unique among the other non-aggression pacts in that it was on the eve of war. The soviets knew war was coming, and so bought more time to prepare.

Not sure what including an example of the social fascism of the SPD at the end there is supposed to do for your point.

This implies the global south enjoyed imperialism before Trump. The global south should be far more against the US Empire in the top image.

The soviets saved the world from fascism, 4/5ths of Nazi deaths were on the Eastern Front. The US took advantage of its new privledged position after World War II to become the world hegemonic empire, which leads us to today. Before World War II, it was and still is to this day a genocidal settler colony.

Nah, revolution is the only way out of this mess. The DNC is a party of imperialists just like the GOP, neither are a path to progress.

If historical record sounds like the soviets were overwhelmingly better than the west, then that’s just your evaluation of the actual historical record. That’s what happened, it isn’t because soviets good and US bad, it’s from fundamental differences in how fascism is treated by communists vs. by liberals.

The communists were never allies with the Nazis. A non-aggression pact is not an alliance. The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

I am being honest here, that’s why I can recognize that since fascism and liberalism are both built on capitalism, they are diametrically opposed to socialism and have more in common with each other than they do with socialism.

Purges were necessary, that doesn’t mean the executions were. Purges often meant simply expelling someone from the party or a prison sentence, not necessarily execution. What’s clear when studying the soviet union, though, is the sheer siege and subterfuge targetting them from right when they first began. We can understand why they did what they did, while also understanding that if they had better resources and political stability then the better option would have been imprisonment and potentially rehabilitation.

No problem! Don’t take my word for it though, that’s just my first impressions. I’m sure others have made it an intention to study.