Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/hakim to get a special offer. Individual results may vary. Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim Twitter: @YaBoiHakim *Sources:* Belgium Contributor, et al. “Locarno Treaties: Treaty between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy.” Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/2021667899/. Accessed 11 March 2024. Britannica. “Weimar Republic - Stabilization, Democracy, Hyperinflation.” Britannica, www.britannica.com/place/Weimar-Republic/Toward-stabilization. Accessed 11 March 2024. Collier, Martin, and Philip Pedley. Germany 1919-45. Pearson Education, 2000. Accessed 21 March 2024. Gross, Jan T. Revolution from abroad: the Soviet conquest of Poland's western Ukraine and western Belorussia. Princeton University Press, 2002. Holdsworth, Nick, et al. “Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact.'” The Telegraph, 18 October 2008, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html. Accessed 13 March 2024. Szymanski, Albert. Class Struggle in Socialist Poland: With Comparisons to Yugoslavia. Praeger, 1984. Accessed 21 March 2024. TIME, Inc. “THE U.S.S.R. LIFE PRESENTS A SPECIAL ISSUE PORTRAYING THE WORKS AND MANNERS OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE.” TIME, 29 March 1943, p. 118, ia801400.us.archive.org/0/items/life-ussr/Life_1943-03-29_v14-13.pdf. Accessed 13 March 2024. Tsygankov, Andrei P. Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: Honor in International Relations. Cambridge University Press, 2012. Accessed 11 March 2024. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and German Reich. Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 23 August 1939. European Network Remembrance and Solidarity, enrs.eu/uploads/media/The%20Molotov-Ribbentrop%20Pact_en%20text.pdf.
Cold War was a media campaign to promote a series of invasions as a "war", whose purpose is always to implicate citizens who would be shielded from the usual foreign human rights violations. The model is decentralizing of the self-interested despot into "voters", and painting the central as an axis of evil. What do you think is the reality of the Yalta Conference 1945?
(1) It was the surrender monkeys who were the ones who handed over Czechoslovakia. France had the direct alliance. Britain was largely there for the ride due to their relationship with France. (2) The Rhineland was far worse. (3) One wrong doesn’t make something else correct..? What a Tankie-brained take
as a Finn, it is very annoying to see other Finnish people point to this pact as a way to equate Soviets with nazis, when we literally enthusiastically worked with and let nazi troops into our country to fight against the soviets. Really good and unbiased historical analysis by them, there
@@bavuh1249 when you consider the fact that soviets imprisoned half of europe under communism and invaded thier fellow warsaw members,commited katyn forest massacre,raped 2 million german women I would say yes. Be grateful for the fact that because of Germany, stalin didnt swallow up western europe
@@yukamikey5000 my borther you are defending communists, who salughtered 30 million christians , dressed as the SS and commited war crimes against it's own citizens and falsely blamed germans for katyn forest massacre
Whole of Europe had non-aggression pacts with Hitler, not to mention allowing him to annex several regions and then Czechoslovakia with the help of Poland.
Makes me wonder why Hollywood and liberal docs often gloss this fact over, hmm...🤔🤔 Also, don't let the average libs find out what Winston Churchill actually thought of Hitler initially, when Nazi Germany just came into form lol
Like there was carricature from the time, mocking the MR pact, because at the time when it was drawn, Hitler already broke every other non-aggression pact.
It’s insane how everyone is so complicit in pretending this was a full on alliance. It’s a non-aggression pact, they signed a deal saying they won’t attack eachother YET because they hated eachother and just gained a border, but neither of them were able to fight a war against eachother yet. It’s so basic and nearly every source backs this up but people just want to pretend that there was any real chance that these two countries could’ve actually allied. Says a hell of a lot about their trustworthiness…
@@testda6522neither side took those talks seriously. You actually think the side that had the explicit goal of the extermination of the other would consider allying with them?
@@testda6522 how is that even supposed to be a counter argument to anything? Come on, if you’re going to argue for some brain dead idea try to at least make like a third of a real argument
@@testda6522 Look up how the USSR was trying to start an anti-German coalition since 1934, and consistently took action against it, while the other European powers were helping Germany.
To add some context. Not that the video is wrong, it is just a complement. Part of Ribbentrop-Molotov was stimulated by the probable aggression of the Japanese empire in the East. Since 1932, border clashes between USSR and Japan was occurring in the Mongolian region and far east Soviet Union. And in november 1936 Japan and Germany signed anti-comintern pact (and that is alliance pact!). Note, during the civil war, the powers invaded USSR through the port of Vladyvostok (the eastern most of Russia SSR). So, the soviets had a crushing fear of been invaded in two fronts, and they're already fighting japan on, yet they halted the japanese progress. But a simultaneous invasion in the west of Ukraine, Belarus borders and in the far East in Mongolia and Siberia still a threat. SO, ANY BUYED TIME WAS PRECIOUS! I'll not extend myself, so I do reccomend the book 'The Soviet Union and the Threat from the east (1933 - 1941)' HASLAM, Jonathan. Keep your nice job Hakim, cheers from a brazilian comrade!
But what is a strategic victory compared to a moral one? The soviets should have followed some liberal moral ideal and lost instead. That way no one would accuse them of being Nazis! (/j, this is the liberal in the room)
Always convenient how we leave Japan and China out of things until "Muh Pearl Harbour got blowed up!". I mean, we call it the Sino-Japanese War, but what we really mean is "calling it the start of World War Two doesn't make us feel special enough".
Even more in the moment when the pact was signed the battle at river Khalgin-gol was going and it wasn't clear who would win in it. The M-R Pact caused even crisis in Japanese government: supporters of idea of war against USSR war changed by "sea clique" that will start a war with USA. As a result in April of 1941 a non-agression pact was signed between USSR and Japan
@@АзарХаликов-у7з Yes, at that time the Japanese military was highly divided between the Army, who wanted to fight the USSR on land, and the Navy, who wanted to expand south into the various European colonies in the Pacific. The M-R Pact completely discredited the Army clique in the Japanese government and saved the USSR from having to fight a 2-front war.
It does not. This is a video from a tankie smoothbrain teisting anything he can And he even has the gaul to call a russo german pact anything other than the thing it says it is in the most basic way Its a fucking pact wether he likes it or not
Genuine question: Why would it be relevant to the claim that Hitler and Stalin had a defense pact? Surely, USSR can commit atrocities without automatically being in cahoots with Nazi Germany?
I always remember Neville Chamberlain declaring "Peace in our time" after his visit with Hitler and thinking, all these liberals really did seem to believe that Hitler was fine.
Liberals opposed fascism from the very start! Greatest NOT-ideology, (because capitalism is just innate to human nature), Churchill greatest swine ever.
@@allergy5634 They didn't have too, they neither lived next to it, nor was under threat of invasion because it was invaded. Were the British arguing that military support should be used against Germany after its invasion, or that a joint Anti-Fascist alliance should be established?
@konstantinkelekhsaev302 Just because something was common, does not make it okay. Slave labour was still common in that era, that doesn't justify slave labour
@@sheepshoe The documents in the Soviet archives were forged by Gorbachev to demonize Stalin, the German were the ones that carried it out, the bullets inside of the polish officers were traced and were fired by Walther PP and PPK fire arms.
Nazi Germany conquered Poland in 1939 and committed many massacres that looked very similar in nature to Katyn's in the following years. It was their modus operandi across Europe to shoot civilians (including children) from the back in front of a mass grave, both of which were unheard of from the Soviet Union. In 1943, as the Nazis were being pushed back from the USSR by the Red Army, they discovered the site and alerted the public. In Joseph Goebbels' diaries from May 1943, he mentions that German munitions were found lodged in the bodies, but was initially unaware of German involvement. Goebbels launched an extensive campaign to publicize the massacre and attribute it to the Soviets. He likely hoped to drive a wedge between the Allied forces to buy some time from an imminent defeat. The Nazis claimed that the massacre had been committed in 1940, which would have been before their arrival, but most of the bullets found inside the graves were of German manufacture produced no earlier than 1941. Goebbel himself write this in his diary : "Unfortunately German munitions were found in the graves of Katyn. The question of how they got there needs clarification. It is either a case of munitions sold by us during the period of our friendly arrangement with the Soviet Russians, or of the Soviets themselves throwing these munitions into the graves. In any case it is essential that this incident be kept top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.”
Can you talk about "appeasement" narrative and how it's weird af and fits with the common western imperialist idea of "west does good things, it just goes badly"
@@MassimoVas yes... But it's still presented as west having good intentions and just failing in western mainstream, like the liberals talk about iraq war
@@king.g-l1g Way to obfuscate the truth. The USSR supported the establishment of the Jewish State on the basis of liberation, Jewish self-determination and protection from the Nazi, but still drew an obvious line on the State of Palestine. Like, let's not gloss over the fact that the USSR was full on supporting Egypt, Syria and the PLO/PFLP (Palestinian communist) in their Arab socialist cause at the time.
@@king.g-l1g indeed, and that is probably one of the worst mistakes of socialist states, specifically those in Eastern Europe. A fatal consequence of not applying decolonial theory to their Marxist worldview. At least they provided help later on to arabs state, but the damage had already been done.
@@GuyWhoLikesTheSnarkies1435 The West says the same thing, supports Israel on the basis of “freedom and democracy” It seems that capitalists, socialists, and communists disagree on everything except their unconditional support for Israel
One cannot understand this Pact without mentioning: -The invasion of the young USSR by Everybody & their Mama -The Soviet intervention in the Spanish civil war -The Soviet inetrvention in favor of China against Japan -The annexation of Austria and the Czech Republic by Germany -The frequent calls in Britain to "smother the baby in its crib" etc. -The fact that Marshall Tukhachevsky, while on the Nazi's payroll, was geating up for a war against a VERY threatening Britain -The desperate attempt by the USSR to secure an alliance with Britain and France -The Soviet victory at Khalkhin Gol only days before this treaty was signed -The fact that members of the German High Command were appalled by the fact that they would apparently have to face a two-front war against Poland one the one side and Frace & Britain on the other and actually tried to assasinate Hitler -The treacherous wording of the British who guaranteed the indipendence but not the territorial integrity of Poland -The fact that the British waited for two days before even declaring war and then didn't really do anything -The Sitzkrieg/Phony war/drôle guerre Man that was a long list! As for the "two extreme" theory, much like the rest of "The road to serfdom" it is just rubbish that does not stand up to scrutiny
@@ThePawcios ... you mean the polish military incursion in Belarus and Ukraine which was an attempt at restoring the borders of 1770 even though the land was mainly inhabited by Ukrainians and Belorussians, which led directly to the Red Army marching against them? The Intermarium project was an attempt of the polish army to grab as much land as they could from the dying russian empire which the red army honestly had a more solid claim on, and it was an incredibly stupid attempt that could have ended Poland in the crib if it was not for infighting within Soviet High Command which led to the Miracle on the Vistula.
@@alexandertheok5649you mean the incursion by both Polish and ukrainian forces that wanted to establish a federation of Poland, ukraine and belarus? because that was the goal of Józef Piłsudski.
@@ussindianapolis487 a "federation" led by Poland and where Poland would have primacy lmao. And dont ask the Ukrainian Red Army what they thought about all that lmao.
As a Lithuanian, I was taught that the pact is why Lithuania got occupied by the USSR. The USSR saying the countries willingly joined the union and the pact being hidden from the soviet public are also important for Lithuania's historical narrative.
And this is the thing I hoped to hear talked about in the video. It's important for socialist content creator's to also point out flaws with old socialist systems to make sure we wouldn't make those mistakes again. Socialism should be anti imperialist system
I invite anyone reading to checkout LonerBox videos about Hakim's "work", say the one about Ukraine and the West. I mean, the level of disinformation on Hakim's channel is insane. The guy cherry-picks, misinterprets the data, smuggles in unreliable sources, sprinkles it with Soviet aesthetic and calls himself a revolutionary. Pathetic.
@@UmQasaann Literally Hakim didn't put a single source here, just feelings and baby crying. In LonerBox'es video he literally pull and discuss everything Hakim's talking about. But you're a fan of Hakim so you'd never get the importance of reliable narrative to live in your bubble.
@@SevenEightSE LonerBox is a Zionist supporting the Schutzstaffel IDF massacring children in Gaza. Liberals are not leftists but closeted fascists using left-wing aesthetics.
@@UmQasaannEven if he is wrong on that part, it doesn't make him wrong on that Hakim videos are trash. It's literally bending facts so they would fit the narrative.
It was objectively better for the Soviets to hold the East of former Poland (which was also former SSRs Belarus and Ukraine) than let the Axis be even more built up when hostilities commenced
Makes ya wonder what kind of strategy the leaders of G.B. and France were thinking? Were they hoping that they could fuck over everyone east of Germany and then.........profit?
@Shinshocks555 poles would be killed because hitler wanted to kill the slavs, poles are slavs, poland also had many jews, jews would be killed etc. less killing under the soviets meaning better, and ethnically that part of poland was not polish, etc,.
Actually a genius comparison. Zoomers audience are mostly made up of people who try to revise Nazi history, and here Hakim is doing the same, but for the USSR.
What about to economic parts of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the other economic pacts of the time? Were the economic provisions necessitated and demanded by Germany or were they mutually desired. And in the end which state benefited the most by them. I would like to hear your perception on it.
Oh FFS! Well, why would polish be unwilling to make pact with USSR? Probably cos of their invasion in 1919? Noooooo that's only cos polish propaganda badmouthing USSR xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
@@endryju1 explain to me how Polish army appeared near Kiev? Why Poland took Vilnius? War started when Poland sieged Vilnius, city which wasn’t Polish.
@@endryju1 Poland declared invaded these regions in 1919, hence it's called "Polish-Soviet war" The agressor is always mentioned first. The most superficial look at the matter already made your point moot because you beleive the exact opposite of reality. Yeah, take your own advice, stop smoking whatever you smoke.
“The soviets had no agreement to partition Poland with Germany.” Proceeds to showing a secret provision in the agreement for the Soviet Union and Germany to partition Poland
@@gripti0n224 YEP.. the terms of what to do in case a war or a conflict were to break out were written in article 2.. if you wanna read into the document.. go on.. debunk it
Yep, German Schoolbooks tell the exact same lie. But considering who decides what books are selected for curriculum, the same Nazis that committed the atrocities, it is no surprise at all. What is remarkable, the fascists are losing massive ground due to the web. The reason why both the European and American fascists want to ban TikTok, it is endangering the narrative. And considering that the idiot Romney recently dropped it's all about Propaganda Control regarding Palestine, they will push again. It seems like a 100 year cycle. The fascists lull the people with their bullshit, until they think the populace is sedated enough not to care and they try again to remove all advancements that were achieved. They will try again, USA and Europa are already preparing to announce their dictatorships.
@@lavenderdasillykitty I don't know what you're even talking about, its always been presented as "non-aggression pact" as well. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had a secret protocol that the Soviets tried (very hard) to deny after World War 2 and when it was revealed was extremely embarrassing to the Soviets (it was never formally admitted until 1989). The fact that there was a secret protocol and that this secret protocol included annexing large parts of Eastern Europe should tell you something. As always, Hakim is just doing his job of cleaning Stalin's ass and nothing more - he is just an influencer making money off of stupid Western Stalinists.
I watched this abomination so that you don't have to and here is a short summary: "There was no secret pact! Well there was, but it wasn't about splitting Poland" "USSR had no intention to invade Poland! Well they did, but they didn't want to" (no mention of Baltic states and Finland which were also in the same document given to USSR and, oh what a coincidence, were also invaded by USSR. So much invasion by someone who doesn't want to invade) "USSR was nice to Polish people" (no mention of Katyn and other atrocities) "Polish people were generally happy about USSR" (no mention why Poles even 80 years later hate them so dearly)
Oh and of course no mention of joint military parade both allies - the Soviets and Nazis, held in Brest-Litovsk after successfully splitting Poland. To be honest for a document that supposedly does not exist (meaning the secret protocols), it very accurately predicted what will happen later...
The video is omitting fact that to non-aggression was attached additional document dividing eastern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) between nazis and USSR.... That is the root of the collaboration :P
I don’t agree with the author of the video, but this is a bad argument. The point of the video is to exploit the misconception that a lot of less informed people have about the MR pact. That it was some sort of alliance between the two powers rather than just an agreement of mutual benefit. He then adds some additional context (while leaving other context out) and voilà, you are able to produce a somewhat convincing narrative for your audience. This sort of exploitation of misconceptions is very common is historical revisionists who seek to promote certain narratives about figures/countries. The misconceptions being debunked sow doubt in the mind of the listener and allow the author to fill in the new gap of information with their own explanation, which will be readily accepted.
My OCD kicks in when I see historical maps and they don't match timeline at all. 2:35 map of Germany (1933) with eastern region but no East Prussia and USSR with Russian (1991-2014 minus Kalingrad oblast) borders excluding Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
@@YaBoiHakim What about the documents found when the soviet files were opened in the 90’s? Dont they show there was a pact to divide conquered territory between the ussr and germany during WW2?
16 days after the Nazis invaded Poland, on 17 September 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Poland without a declaration of war and occupied eastern Poland. On 28 September 1939, the two warring parties signed the German-Soviet Border and Friendship Treaty, which defined the new borders in Eastern Europe and brought "ethnic Germans" who had been living in the Soviet Union "back to the Reich" . There was also significant economic co-operation between the Nazis and Soviets until 1941 the Soviet Union supplied Germany with grain, oil, cotton and chrome ore worth around 500 million Reichsmarks, which accounted for 52% of the Soviet Union's total exports. The Third Reich gave industrial goods and war machines in exchange. The supplies of raw materials from the Soviet Union enabled Germany to continue the war. In 1940, the Third Reich obtained 74% of its imported phosphates, 67% of its asbestos, 64% of its chromium, 55% of its manganese, 40% of its nickel and 34% of its crude oil from the Soviet Union. That seems like quite the cooperation between the USSR and Nazi Germany.
@@eeeertoo2597 Since the Allies did not have hindsight and the soviets were as much a possible threat to them as the Nazis, not cooperating with the Soviets from the get go made political sense for the time. When the Germans turned on the Soviets in 1941 however the United States immediatly made large efforts to support the Soviet Union through lend-lease with food, oil and material, which relieved the Soviets mostly in logistical issues and ressources.
@@celestialoof6346 Yeah because liberals will always take fascists over leftists, which is pretty telling, but no, they knew the Germans were a threat, hence the appeasement "strategy"
@@celestialoof6346 From what you said, doesn't it also make sense for the time that, given the absolute failure fo negotiations with the Allies, that the Soviets would try to gain as much time as possible before the guaranteed coming invasion, and in that sense make concessions to the Nazis in the form of the reciprocal trade you mentioned? And weren't the Allies also as much of a threat for the USSR as the USSR was to them? Why are the allies given the benefit of hindsight and self-defense and the USSR isn't? And if it was a cooperation pact, what were they actually cooperating towards to?
@@rubensousa9216 I never said that the Soviets had hindsight. But to supply the German War machine and carve up eastern Europe together is not a concession, that is aggression against eastern Europe, even if this was a way to forestall the Germans from invading the Soviet Union. If the Soviets hadn't supplied the Nazis, then the Nazis wouldn't even have had the capability to conquer the rest of Europe and start an invasion against the USSR in the first place.
As someone very interested in history it just sucks that some people actually believe that this (Molotov-Ribbentrop) was an alliance rather than a way to continue the Soviet neutrality for as long as they possibly could
Do people not realize that Non-Aggression Pacts, by design, are mostly for nations whom are at threat of fighting each other. If they wanted to ally themselves, they would actually have fully seriously dedicated their resources to such and sign a pact of Military Alliance, NOT a Non-Aggression Pact. Hitler's dialogue of the USSR made this very obviously impossible, even if Stalin (or the other Political figures because Stalin wasn't a one-man dictatorship) wanted to.
It was an alliance. Saying that the "non-aggression Pact" was "merely" a non-aggression pact is absurd on its face. If it was that, Molotov and Stalin wouldn't have worked so hard to deny the secret protocols in the agreement (which in and of itself should be a clue that it wasn't "just" a non-aggression pact). Moreover, the USSR provided a lifeline to Nazi Germany during the early stages of the war. Nazi Germany was running an oil deficit every single year of the war, but the USSR supplied the Germans with oil in huge quantities after the British initiated their naval blockade (which would have resulted in Germany losing the war in the long run). The sad part of it is that this oil is what enabled Germany to even invade the USSR in the first place. The invasion of 1941 would not have been possible without Soviet oil. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940).
@@RTWPimpmachine first off, you cited Wikipedia so already off to a bad start, but second I didn't say it was just an NAP I didn't directly address the secret protocols, but I didn't deny their existence either. What I said was that this was a way to ensure Soviet neutrality after the west was unwilling to work with them (at the time). I know about the oil transfers and deals between them, this doesn't mean that the Soviets Allied with the Nazis. An alliance entails that the Soviets would have joined the Axis in WW2 to fight the Allies (which obviously didn't happen) but rather the pact's purpose was to ensure both sides didn't declare war on one another and it accomplished this by setting up spheres of influence. I personally don't believe this was a good move by the Soviet government and rather belive it would have been better to attempt to attack Germany and help the uncooperative Allies. No, I'm not making this argument because I'm a communist, it's just basic history knowledge that it was not an alliance against anything, it was to preserve the peace between the 2 as long as possible.
Communist lie millions die. You are not interested in history you are interested in rewriting it to fit your ideology and that of the other red fascists in here. Hakim is a propagandist and cares not about history. This far left rewriting of history is no different than the far right trying to do the same. Extremist have to lie and always lie otherwise there is never a justification for the hate they spread and the power they want to grab.
@@RTWPimpmachineIts weird how its zo obviously an alliance but not even the anti soviet western historians say that it was an alliance.. infact, nobody does
Hi Hakim, great video, just one issue!! My mother was born in Poland in 1989 and she told me that Stalin came to her house the day she was born and stole all of our families spoons (which they were going to use to eat babies!!) We live in a spoon free household now, and have to tear our babies apart with our fingernails :(
On 25 November 1940, the Soviet Union offered a written counter-proposal to join the Axis if Germany would agree to refrain from interference in the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, but Germany did not respond. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
These proposals were understood as feints and deception by both sides, as both sides were already at low intensity war (proxy wars) against each other in multiple theatres, and their ideologies and long term goals clashed severely.
Yes, there was. It included trade agreements (there was even a second commercial treaty in 1940) and secret protocols that led to the occupation of Poland, the Baltics, and the invasion of Finland.
It's really quite pointless to debunk every bit of anti-communist propaganda that's based on historical events of the past. It's always a manipulation either way, even if the historical event that they're using was indeed not a lie, but some horrible mistake or even crime that happened under a socialist government. The thing is that reactionary propaganda always pulls the ol' switcharoo - it criticizes an isolated event (no matter if the critique is valid or not), and then makes a sophistic, intentionally misleading claim that "therefore, socialism is bad", whereas to properly criticize socialism at its core, one has to analyze its overall tendencies, properties and contradictions. On that field, reactionary propaganda only has lies and asinine ridiculous falsifications, i.e. "everyone's poor, miserable and hungry under socialism", etc. Honest communist propagandists never blame capitalism for isolated individual events, instead pointing out tendencies, because such is the materialist approach to analyzing history (and contemporary events too, for that matter). For example, we blame capitalism as a system for the Nazis, because when we analyze the material root cause of their emergence, we see that fascism is the terrorist dictatorship of the financial capital, in times of systemic crises and when large capital feels seriously threatened in general. I.e. while there's capitalism and boom/bust cycles that come with it, there'll always be potential for future Hitlers and Pinochets.
LOL so instead of admitting your genocidal dictatorship was a genocidal dictatorship, you dismiss all the evidence as "manipulated" that's some next level bootlicking and you people unironically think you're different from the "it wasn't 6 million" crowd...🤡🤡
I remember audibly sighing when the alliance between the fascistic Krill and the theocratic Moclan was compared to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in The Orville. Damn you, Seth MacFarlane...
So read his sources, discredit him with proper arguments, instead of trying to personally attack him and discredit him by saying he drinks lead paint. Typical Fascist, shame on you
@@kxbelsalat6390don’t be surprised by the quality of “rebuttals.” I call it “when in doubt, just gaslight.” Making your opponent think is way better then having to think yourself.
And there are so many tankies here, so many potential traitors to their countries. Hopefully the security services of these tankies' nations are watching them closely.
(Political) Right and Left are not a "continuum". They are two irreconcilable opposites where the right is the past of left, a rightist is someone that whose political positions come from fear, a leftist that have left those fears behind and is one step above in the stairs of evolution towards absolute conscience.
The horseshoe theory is so weird. Just look at a horseshoe and see the unbridged gap between the two extremities...? How can they say they "touch" each other? ^^'
@@UmQasaann explain it to some of my ancestors from southern russia, they were the victims of holodomor, many of their relatives died due to the famine
I love your work so much! But please, can you slow down? I can't keep up with what you're saying because you speed through your speaking so fast in every video. That's my only gripe. Other than that, please keep up the great work you do. Solidarity ✊
Stalin attacking Poland and literally exterminating Polish intelligentsia to install a foreign rule over Poland. Tankies in the replies - "imperialism 😂"
@@eeeertoo2597most open minded hasan fan. Bro litteraly calls everyone a nazi because they dont want to deny that stalin killed millions. Your are litteraly the same as the people you so desperately despise. Nazis deny holocaust, you deny holodomor, stalins reppresions and the killing of millions of people by the hands of communists.
The language of the pact very clearly states an agreement to partition Poland between Germany and the USSR. You constantly act as an apologist for the USSR in ways that are completely disingenuous and it's concerning in that it seems you'd support all the same actions if they were done again. There seems to be streak of dogmatic thinking in you when it comes to former socialist experiments. The fact is that the ussr ended up becoming imperialist in their own ways and they never moved beyond capitalism. Maintaining state capitalism as well as some levels of private ownership only led to the ussr moving back toward private capitalism over time. They never even breached into common ownership, nevermind approaching communism. Be real, this kind of thinking is far to common among communists and that causes me to worry about the viability of future socialist experiments. If we follow failed experiments we'll only fail again.
Not only were the eastern parts of pre-war poland ethnically different - they were also radicalized to the extreme. We could see the rotten fruits of that among movements such as OUN-UPA, responsible for "gaming" that would put even Pol Pot or Leopold 2nd of Belgium to shame.
I mean, the video is kinda misleading. These territories still had large Polish populations, for example: -Grodno, Wilno (today Vilnius) and the regions surrounding them were ethnically Polish. -Lwów (Today Lviv) was majority Polish, but the regions surrounding them were Ukrainian, the city however was one of the biggest Polish cultural centers.
@@thepotatogod2951 Yup, exactly. People acting as if Poland illegally occupied those territories whereas they had just as much right to it as Ukraine, Lithuania etc. All this ethnic mixing in those areas is a direct result of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its multicultural and tolerant approach which was unfortunately lost and replaced by homogenous ethnic states. Under this model ethnic tensions were bound to happen sooner or later.
There is an excellent documentary by french-german channel ARTE called justthat : "The Hitler-Stalin pact". You might think it's the usual UE liberal bs but nope. It goes through years of diplomatic blunders and cowardice by the UK and France while the soviet diplomacy grows more and more frustrated with them, having pushed from the start for a "collective security" pragmatic alliance. It is told by the point of view of the soviet union diplomat in London Ivan Maisky. There is no english version or even subtitles of it but for those who understand french or german, it really is an eye-opener.
Thank you for getting Historical records straight Brother Hakim. It was Soviet Union which offered sending troops to Czechoslovakia and stop Nazi invasion while Western Imperialism celebrated Munich betrayal because they prefer fascists rather than growing working class movement
@@popplers5entropy647 Let's start with the title. So Molotov and Ribbentrot just got together and agreed the pact on their own without orders from Hitler and Stalin, who presumably never knew about it and didn't OK the deal!!! Utter garbage. Then he goes on to argue that the horseshoe theory was trash, when it's the idiotic linear theory that's trash. The version of Marxist-Lenninism that Stalin practiced, often referred to as Stalinism, was indeed in practice and outcome not that different from National-Socialism. They were the opposite sides of the same coin!!!!
@@ronwilson9815 nobody said Stalin and Hitler "didn't OK the deal" (Molotov and Ribbentrop "pact" was a non-aggression agreement, it was not a military Alliance). Nowhere in the video does it say that, and no one else has claimed that to my knowledge or in the comments. You sound like a conspiracy nutjob. Your support of the numerously debunked horseshoe theory doesn't bode well either. It reeks of injecting massive amounts of propaganda and brainwashing. You should watch a few more videos on this channel and try to break out of your bubble.
@@ronwilson9815 so much emotional crying, it is politics, girl. Politics is always about deals and agreements, before 1939 Poland was trying to achieve unity with Germany, they even invaded Czechoslovakia together, while USSR was protesting against it.
Not split up Poland. Ally with the Allies earlier. Not send oil, raw materials, and grain to a nation you were supposedly expecting to fight a war against.
@@Razzanonymous damn. if only the USSR had attempted some kind of diplomacy with France and Britain, like something to try and ensure their Collective Security. shame they didn't do that and just immediately went for a non-aggression pact with Germany before considering any other options. it's a real shame that they didn't do literally anything else. i wonder how the video you are commenting on contends with this failure on the part of the USSR to even attempt to pursue Collective Security. there really should be a section of the video that directly addresses this topic
The same thing Britain and France did--security guarantees for Poland. Germany in 1939 was not ready for a two-front war, and Poland would've given stronger resistance without fighting on both sides, never mind if it received Soviet support.
@@samuelwithers2221Soviets offered that anti-Hitler alliance repeatedly, and offered to protect Czechoslovakia, but Poland, Britain, and France refused these offers repeatedly. Also bear in mind that the Slovaks and Lithuanians took their own pieces of Poland when the Germans attacked. If the Soviets had stayed out, Poland would have been carved up 3 ways instead of 4 ways, and the Ukrainians and Belarusians who lived under Polish occupation would have traded that for German and maye Slovak and Lithuanian occupation instead of being reunited with the Belarusian and Ukrainian republics.
@@longjones The documents in the Soviet archives were forged by Gorbachev to demonize Stalin, the German were the ones that carried it out, the bullets inside of the polish officers were traced and were fired by Walther PP and PPK fire arms. The Red Army wasn't even is present in the Katyn Forest. The human rights court of the European Union has analysis the document and said that is was forgery.
@@UmQasaann right. Besides, killing enemy professional soldiers is what routinely happens in wars around the world even today. This whole affair keeps being presented with such emotional overtones as if it were some kind of atrocity against innocent babies. The reality: A bunch of career professional soldiers, experienced killers, leaders of killer teams whose job was to order people to kill other people as effectively and efficiently as possible, who had just finished killing thousands of foreigners in a war were themselves killed.
@@sevrinbrown3821The Molotov-Ribbentrob pact was real, except it wasn't a military pact. It was more of a non aggression pact, both Germany and the Soviets were expansionist, Germany was fighting a massive war and needed resources at the time. So they signed a non aggression pact and both parties expanded, until there was no more land to expand into without risking war. Which is when Germany broke the pact.
@@TutuBoy-835 I mean I don’t think the Russians were attempting to ethnically cleanse an area to allow for their people to settle. I believe like Hakim said that it was more an attempt to shield a number of ethnically Russian and Ukrainian people living in Poland. Which like the video said, definitely had mistakes, but I do think the Russians were definitely attempting to do something morally good, while the Nazis were doing something pretty evil
@@elisgus135 I did twice and the comment got deleted or didn't get posted, so you're gonna have to settle with this... Idk if it's youtubes auto-mod or if it's his but whatever it is (or however this site works), it didn't let me.
If mentioning the colonial nature of Polish rule in the Kresy, I think you should have mentioned the Osadniks. Which were Polish settler colonists who were given land inhabited by non-Poles to Polish veterans and their families
It’s a shame that the fate of the Kresy region is taught in such a way in Poland. They teach you how it was this idyllic, rural place, with Ukrainians and Belarussians living in the wooden huts, while Poles lived in the cities and were acting as a „civilizing” factor. People have no shame in commenting how „without the war, the population would be fully integrated/Polonized and Volhynia wouldn’t have happened, lmao”. Some idiots are still crying for Polish Lviv and Vilnius. As a Pole hailing from the pre-war German parts of the country, I fail to see any benefit of aquiring the region in the first place…
@@Vitalis94My man you are boxing shadows. Never heard the take as yours. When it comes to places like Vilnus and Lvov they had very significant place in Polish-Lithunian culture.
Commies never gave a shit about the relevant people or minorities especially if they don't align with their agenda case in point Jews, Ukrainians and Poles.
I don't think Soviets and Nazis were the same. Still, this recollection of events is very biased, the Soviet invasion of Poland was also characterized by the mass killing and removal of undesirables, in this case based on their role in government. Look up the Katyn massacre.
"Between January 1940 and date of the German invasion, the USSR exported goods of a total estimated value of 597.9 million Reichsmarks to Germany. German deliveries amounted to 437.1 million Reichsmarks.[1]: 367-369 The agreements continued German-Soviet economic relations and resulted in the delivery of large amounts of raw materials to Germany, including over 820,000 metric tons (900,000 short tons; 810,000 long tons) of oil, 1,500,000 metric tons (1,700,000 short tons; 1,500,000 long tons) of grain and 130,000 metric tons (140,000 short tons; 130,000 long tons) of manganese ore."
Damn, they TRADED with the Germans, this is basically an alliance, they basically invaded France together, lets ignore the two entire countries the British gave away to the Germans
@@eeeertoo2597Whataboutisms won’t save your favorite historical dictator from the fact he signed commercial agreements to send important war materials to a fascist state while it was busy conquering Europe.
While Germany gave them mechanisms and PATENTS. That continued to serve USSR even after all the grain and oil were eaten and burnt. The trade wasn't in German favor (they still accepted because of need).
No he just order killing of 22 k people in one go, sending 100 k to Sybir camps, laber exploitation, , red army rape violence, Dismantiling polish instutuions killing of inteligencia and mass men made femen
@@eeeertoo2597 Explain how it's nazi propaganda when the nazis and soviets literally signed a treaty. holy fuck you people are so brainwashed its insane
In addition to previously mentioned (dishonest) omission, you try to argue that the MR treaty doesn't carve up Poland when article II does this, and actually gives space for no independent state of Poland. I'm sorry Hakim, this goes beyond "giving the other side". You're actively misleading your audience, and im VERY disappointed. You can't keep claiming ignorance every time it's inconvenient. I KNOW you know this.
Lorano Pact is a alliance between west powers and germany empire against USSR "It also stated that Germany would never go to war with the other countries. Locarno divided borders in Europe into two categories: western, which were guaranteed by the Locarno Treaties, and eastern borders of Germany with Poland, which were open for revision."
As much as I hate this video, he somehow has to make a living. Sure, it would be ideal to be finances only by patreon and donations, but if that is not possible, I think it's okay that he has sponsors. Besides, they obviously don't impact the video quality
everyone knows marxists can only live off of air energy just like taoists! this should be obvious, from paris commune to soviet revolution all the communists lived off was meditation
The Germans invaded a day after the non-aggression pact was signed. Britain and France had invaded USSR during the civil war to defeat the Communists. Why should the Soviets not push the Germans to the West first? They had already tried to ally with France and Britain too. Poland was also doing imperial expansion. Let's not talk about Britain and France colonialism. Most of these lands belonged to Russian Empire before the WW1 anyway. Why not spread the Revolution of the Workers to the entire world? That was the aim and it was good. Too bad it failed in the end. Enjoy your Capitalist Dystopia where the vast majority of people are oppressed. The poor people welcomed the Soviets. It was the rich and the bourgeois that were against them from the start. The Communists could not let those vipers stay in power. The whole point was Class Struggle.
Brainrot take. The USSR left the negotiations with France & Britain, which was in fact a betrayal of France who they had been military allies with since 1934. The colonialism of France & Britain is irrelevant here, as you're talking about an alliance with the Nazis who wanted to take over the entirety of Europe and aid other imperialist regimes which wanted to dominate the globe as well. Nor does it matter if "most of the lands" belonged to the Russian empire which the USSR wanted to invade. I thought imperialism was bad when it came to Britain & France, but suddenly you're using it as a historical justification for the USSR's expansionism. I wish that wasn't as funny as it was. Also, you could've looked it up literally anywhere, but the non-aggression pact was signed almost two whole years before Germany invaded, not "one day." What an incredibly silly thing to say. I'm sure that the workers realllly liked the USSR, that must be why practically every communist country started liberalization reforms between the 70s and 80s. Go off though queen, I'm sure its part of the "necessity of history" and "Marxian analysis" that mom-&-pop shops have to be confiscated by the state. Those family-owned restaurants are just so oppressive... or something. Anyways here's some excerpts from the Soviets & others that could help you learn actual history instead of this garbage that Tankies feed you: "One may accept or reject the ideology of Hitlerism as well as any other ideological system, that is a matter of political views. But everybody should understand that an ideology cannot be destroyed by force, that it cannot be eliminated by war. It is, therefore, not only senseless but criminal to wage such a war as a war for the ‘destruction of Hitlerism’ camouflaged as a fight for ‘democracy’." - VM Molotov, Speech Delivered on 31 October 1939 (USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs) "Whoever calls against Jewish capital, gentlemen, is already a class fighter, even if he doesn't know it. They are against Jewish capital and want to fight down the stock market jobbers. Rightly so. Trample down the Jewish capitalists, hang them on the lantern, trample them. But gentlemen, what do you think of the big capitalists, the Stinnes, Klöckner ...?" - Ruth Fischer, Chairwoman of the Communist Party of Germany, 1923 “Ribbentrop confessed as much to Mussolini on 10 March 1940: “In confidence, the Reich Foreign Minister can announce that Russia is being VERY GENEROUS in supplying raw materials and is using some of her own gold to buy raw materials which Germany needs.”” - Ciano’s Diplomatic Papers (London, 1948), p 347 Be honest about the record of the Stalinists. Stalin failed to oppose Hitler taking power, suppressed the Polish Communist Party, let Ethiopia fall to Mussolini, whose airplanes flew with Russian oil and whose soldiers fed on Russian wheat, and failed to improve conditions of the war against Franco. Everything about Stalin was a failure. And let's not forget why the Soviets were so keen to work with the Nazis: "Of the 50 intellectuals publicly attacked during the last two months, 49 are Jewish!" (April 11, 1949) - Yiddishe Kempfer, March 17-18, 1949
@@Albtraum_TDDC 1. No, Germans invaded 2 years after it was signed. 2. The USSR was the one which left the negotiations with France & England, one of which it had a military alliance going back to 1934 which it broke just so it could ally with the Nazis. 3. I like how imperialism is bad when France & Britain do it, but it suddenly becomes a justification for USSR expansionism. "Bro they were just taking back old imperial lands!!!" 4. I forgot mom-&-pop shops and family-owned businesses are actually oppressing our poor working class, how sad! Truly dystopic. Thank you, USSR, for having the state run everything. Real workers in control! Anyways, please take a moment to read a first-hand report from within the USSR. Read verrry slowly: “... all the agreements reached between Germany and the USSR during the last three months - the non-aggression pact, the boundary and friendship treaty, and lastly the economic agreement - have established a solid and lasting basis for the development of cordial economic and political relations between the two states. They fully correspond to the basic interests of the German and Soviet peoples, to the interests of peace, and to the interests of the popular masses in every country.” - Pravda, (Soviet Paper) 18 February 1940.
source: trust me borther. Military alliance means that in case of war allys fight on the same side. I willing to bt any money that neither germans fought on side of ussr during winter war, neither ussr fought on side of Germany during their invasion of France. SO STFU.
@@PAC-0922And Russia had invaded Poland previously and taken that land. Either way, the real crime is that the Soviet Union collaborated with the Nazis to divide Eastern Europe and that the Soviets committed atrocities against the Poles in the region they annexed.
@@Слышьты-ф4ю Do you think that the USSR signing a non aggression pact with Germany and talking about splitting Poland between the two made Germany's invasion more likely or less likely? did the USSR deterred or enabled Germany's invasion?
@@eeeertoo2597 No one is saying that the allies were perfect, they were in denial trying to avoid war at all cost with their policy of appeasement towards Germany and that was a mistake, but they did declare war to Germany after the invasion of Poland, the USSR did the opposite of that and that’s far worse imo.
@@eeeertoo2597 It's not 100% the allies' fault, that is insane, you're taking away not just the obvious responsibility of the USSR by ENABLING the German invasion of Poland, but you're also ignoring the responsibility of the Germans themselves lol, ridiculous. Bye.
@@TheFBI911 Because they were allied with the USSR at the time and as such talking nice about the USSR makes sense? Look at FDR’s positive statements towards Stalin as a direct example of this (uncle Joe). Especially in 1943 since discussions about what to do after the war were starting and as such it made sense to not talk bad about the USSR. Especially considering the fact the USSR was doing the heavy lifting against Germany. What official would be dumb enough to jeopardize that? As the dude said, hilariously bad source
Honestly, I think the article ii he shows that lays out the bounds of the 'spheres of influence' within Poland which the red army stayed almost precisely within upon invasion is pretty damning evidence towards an agreement to partition of the country. Also he should have at least mentioned the Katyn massacre as more than a 'mistake'.
yeah but stalin did all he could to prevent the war and when that failed he decided to do what he could and A: be the better side to live on and B: make sure to delay a nazi invasion for as long as possible and make industrialisation as fast as possible. thus meaning when the nazis do invade the USSR could minimize the damage that the nazis would do. part of delaying war could include not intruding on an agreed border
@@oscarbjb7938 I do think it was a pragmatic move to avoid hostilities, but I believe there is quite substantial evidence that Stalin did not anticipate an attack from the Germans, such as dismissing military intelligence suggesting that the Germans were preparing an invasion as 'alarmism' right up to the eve of Barbarossa. I view the agreement as a land grab at best to strengthen socialism in one country. Additionally, while Soviet actions pale in comparison to German brutality, there were substantial efforts by the Soviets to decapitate any indigenous Polish political movements, such as the Katyn massacre, where over 20,000 Polish school teachers, professors, priests, and officers were marched into western Russia and executed, notably in the Katyn Forest, where mass graves of thousands of victims were discovered in mass graves. So although the Soviets were less barbaric than the Germans, they still committed atrocious acts which I think Hakim does not adequately address.
@@oscarbjb7938 I do believe that the agreement was a pragmatic move to avoid hostilities, but disagree that Stalin anticipated an attack by the Germans. This is, in my view, evidenced by Stalin dismissing military intelligence suggesting an imminent German invasion as 'alarmism' right up to the eve of Barbarossa, leading to the country's woeful lack of preparedness for the attack. Additionally, in 1940, serious talks were held between the Soviets and Germans for the admission of the Soviet Union as a fourth axis power, and draft treaties were exchanged dividing the world into spheres of influence, though the Germans eventually declined a proposal drafted personally by Stalin over disputes regarding Finland and the Balkans. So I strongly disagree Stalin was working towards an inevitable conflict with Germany, considering his trust that the Germans would not violate the non-aggression agreement, was willing to enter into outright alliance with the Germans, and to export vast quantities of minerals to fuel the German war machine. Additionally, while the brutality of Soviet actions in Poland pale in comparison to those of Germany, the Soviets still made deliberate efforts to decapitate any indigenous Polish political movements. One of these being the Katyn massacre, wherein over 20,000 Polish school teachers, professors, priests, and officers were deported into western Russia, where they were then executed, most notably at Katyn Forest, where the mass graves of thousands of victims were discovered. So although the Soviets were less barbaric in their occupation, they still committed atrocious acts I feel Hakim did not adequately address.
Yes, katyn massacre is a horrible crime committed by German nazi regime, and it is a soviet mistake for not evacuating polish POW or placing them further from the border to begin with (though evacuation would have been almost impossible if you take in to consideration the start of the war chaos and all of the rail lines being clogged by factories evacuating east and mobilized going west. Also i really struggle to understand how this mistake justifies the German brutality.
"On April 13, 1990, the Russian TASS agency unexpectedly broadcast a very important announcement about the Katyn massacre. It admitted that the NKVD was responsible for the murders. Two years later, Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Federation, apologized to the Poles for the Soviet (Russian) crime in Katyn." - And in your version, somehow the Germans in 1940 could have found themselves over 700 km away from the areas they controlled and shot thousands of Poles who were in Soviet captivity. So there are two options: A - magic or B - Russian/Soviet propaganda.
Stalin wrote a letter congratulating Hitler on his takeover of France, invaded Poland from the East in unison with the Nazis, the USSR and Nazis literally had celebrations/military parade over the victory and Stalin even considered joining the axis at one point. “German-Soviet Axis talks occurred in October and November 1940 concerning the Soviet Union's potential adherent as a fourth Axis power during World War II. The negotiations, which occurred during the era of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, included a two-day conference in Berlin between Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Adolf Hitler and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The talks were followed by both countries trading written proposed agreements. After two days of negotiations from 12 to 14 November 1940, Germany presented the Soviets with a draft written Axis pact agreement that defined the world spheres of influence of the four proposed Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union).[1] Hitler, Ribbentrop and Molotov tried to set German and Soviet spheres of influence. Hitler encouraged Molotov to look south to Iran and eventually India, to preserve German access to Finland's resources and to remove Soviet influence in the Balkans.[2] Molotov remained firm and sought to remove German troops from Finland and gain a warm water port in the Baltic. Soviet foreign policy calculations were predicated on the idea that the war would be a long-term struggle and so German claims that the United Kingdom would be defeated swiftly were treated with skepticism.[3] In addition, Stalin sought to remain influential in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Those factors resulted in Molotov taking a firm line.[2] According to a study by Alexander Nekrich, on 25 November 1940, the Soviets presented a Stalin-drafted written counterproposal accepting the four power pact but including Soviet rights to Bulgaria and a world sphere of influence, to be centred on the area around Iraq and Iran.[4] Germany did not respond[5][6] and left the negotiations unresolved. Regarding the counterproposal, Hitler remarked to his top military chiefs that Stalin "demands more and more", "he's a cold-blooded blackmailer" and "a German victory has become unbearable for Russia" so that "she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible."[7] Germany ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in June 1941 by invading the Soviet Union. In the following years, the Soviet Information Bureau published a book titled Falsifiers of History, largely edited by Stalin himself, in which the Soviet premier claimed that he was simply testing his enemy. This became the official version of events that persisted in Soviet historiography up until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. According to Soviet diplomat Victor Israelyan, the book "certainly did nothing to disprove the existence of Soviet-German cooperation in the first years of World War II, a cooperation that to a certain degree assisted Hitler's plan". There’s soo much more to bring up. Stop denying history. You’re no different than a Southern States apologist, an Armenian Genocide denier or a Holocaust denier. Ironic since you people parade the use of the term Nazi as an insult and make “states rights to do what?” Memes, when you yourself engage in behaviour no different than the people you criticise.
Letter: Diplomacy 101 - don't be a dick. And no, Stalin never considered joining the Axis. In said negotiations the soviets made maximalist demnds and did not budge a iota. You do not know what you're talking about and just shit on the desk.
You would rather the nazis took all of Poland? The Nazis literally enslaved Polish people as well as killing millions of polish jews. Poland under USSR control was undoubtedly the better place to be.
I'm sure that there's more to history than any one source but what about the Soviet massacre of the Polish intelligentsia in the Katyn Forest? Orwell wisely disliked both & for good reason ( not to mention his experience with the Soviets in the Spanish Civil War).
Like Hakim said, there is nuanced in the conversation. However, I find it very funny you bring up Orwell considering Both Hakim and the community he fosters hated him
The last time I researched Katyn was many years ago and new reports have come out since which I didn't have time to properly research, hence why I didn't talk about it extensively in this video.
A video idea could be about appeasment policy, since some historians seem to think that Czechoslovakia should have fought back against the nazis (like Poland did) instead of surrendering. That they should have at least put up a symbolic fight.
10:27 "-and only 1 day after the Supreme Soviet approved it." Supreme Soviet approval of the invasion? Can't find that at all. If it's something else he's talking about approving please link it or just link the source about the Supreme Soviet approving the invasion of Poland.
Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/hakim to get a special offer. Individual results may vary.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/ComradeHakim
Twitter: @YaBoiHakim
*Sources:*
Belgium Contributor, et al. “Locarno Treaties: Treaty between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy.” Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/2021667899/. Accessed 11 March 2024.
Britannica. “Weimar Republic - Stabilization, Democracy, Hyperinflation.” Britannica, www.britannica.com/place/Weimar-Republic/Toward-stabilization. Accessed 11 March 2024.
Collier, Martin, and Philip Pedley. Germany 1919-45. Pearson Education, 2000. Accessed 21 March 2024.
Gross, Jan T. Revolution from abroad: the Soviet conquest of Poland's western Ukraine and western Belorussia. Princeton University Press, 2002.
Holdsworth, Nick, et al. “Stalin 'planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact.'” The Telegraph, 18 October 2008, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3223834/Stalin-planned-to-send-a-million-troops-to-stop-Hitler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html. Accessed 13 March 2024.
Szymanski, Albert. Class Struggle in Socialist Poland: With Comparisons to Yugoslavia. Praeger, 1984. Accessed 21 March 2024.
TIME, Inc. “THE U.S.S.R. LIFE PRESENTS A SPECIAL ISSUE PORTRAYING THE WORKS AND MANNERS OF THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE.” TIME, 29 March 1943, p. 118, ia801400.us.archive.org/0/items/life-ussr/Life_1943-03-29_v14-13.pdf. Accessed 13 March 2024.
Tsygankov, Andrei P. Russia and the West from Alexander to Putin: Honor in International Relations. Cambridge University Press, 2012. Accessed 11 March 2024.
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and German Reich. Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 23 August 1939. European Network Remembrance and Solidarity, enrs.eu/uploads/media/The%20Molotov-Ribbentrop%20Pact_en%20text.pdf.
I wish you made this Video earlier. I would shared your video with that nimrod game developer.
I wonder why the ever so youthful comrade Hakim recommended a solution to male pattern baldness? 🤔
@@thicckilogram8372 for the unfortunate comrades with a receding hairline
ur ofending lenin baldness by selling anti bald products
Cold War was a media campaign to promote a series of invasions as a "war", whose purpose is always to implicate citizens who would be shielded from the usual foreign human rights violations. The model is decentralizing of the self-interested despot into "voters", and painting the central as an axis of evil.
What do you think is the reality of the Yalta Conference 1945?
Libs love talking about this as if the UK didn't hand Czechoslovakia to the Nazis
We will never forget what French and British did to us.
(1) It was the surrender monkeys who were the ones who handed over Czechoslovakia. France had the direct alliance. Britain was largely there for the ride due to their relationship with France.
(2) The Rhineland was far worse.
(3) One wrong doesn’t make something else correct..? What a Tankie-brained take
Münich betrayal.
The brits and french pressed the CSSR to divide and ask for to be annexed. Look for the book written by Starikow.
The Czechoslovakian government were mistreating Germans in the Sudetenland region. Why no mention of that?
as a Finn, it is very annoying to see other Finnish people point to this pact as a way to equate Soviets with nazis, when we literally enthusiastically worked with and let nazi troops into our country to fight against the soviets. Really good and unbiased historical analysis by them, there
Ok Nazi, follow your leader@@tapeplixio2419
@@tapeplixio2419 Is your ass seriously trying to tell me that Germany was defending europe against the soviets
@@bavuh1249 when you consider the fact that soviets imprisoned half of europe under communism and invaded thier fellow warsaw members,commited katyn forest massacre,raped 2 million german women I would say yes. Be grateful for the fact that because of Germany, stalin didnt swallow up western europe
@@tapeplixio2419defensive, by invading poland first? yeah like israel is “defending itself,” suuuure
@@yukamikey5000 my borther you are defending communists, who salughtered 30 million christians , dressed as the SS and commited war crimes against it's own citizens and falsely blamed germans for katyn forest massacre
People who say Hitler-Stalin pact are the kinda of people to claim Vietnam was a defensive war.
They exist? What!?
@@TacticalAnt420 Unfortunately yes.
"people" . I don't think you can call parts in the global murder machine that.
Vietnam was an American war of aggression
Stalin and Hitler were in a pact until 1941
Whole of Europe had non-aggression pacts with Hitler, not to mention allowing him to annex several regions and then Czechoslovakia with the help of Poland.
Makes me wonder why Hollywood and liberal docs often gloss this fact over, hmm...🤔🤔 Also, don't let the average libs find out what Winston Churchill actually thought of Hitler initially, when Nazi Germany just came into form lol
Why did my reply get hidden tho? I didn't even say anything contrarian, was literally agreeing with OP😕
Like there was carricature from the time, mocking the MR pact, because at the time when it was drawn, Hitler already broke every other non-aggression pact.
Sounds like you're shadowbanned. Most of my comments get deleted, no matter where on FedTube I post them. @@GuyWhoLikesTheSnarkies1435
How many had secret protocols my guy also nice Russian revisionism
It’s insane how everyone is so complicit in pretending this was a full on alliance. It’s a non-aggression pact, they signed a deal saying they won’t attack eachother YET because they hated eachother and just gained a border, but neither of them were able to fight a war against eachother yet.
It’s so basic and nearly every source backs this up but people just want to pretend that there was any real chance that these two countries could’ve actually allied. Says a hell of a lot about their trustworthiness…
Look up the Soviet-Axis talks…..
@@testda6522neither side took those talks seriously. You actually think the side that had the explicit goal of the extermination of the other would consider allying with them?
@@testda6522 how is that even supposed to be a counter argument to anything? Come on, if you’re going to argue for some brain dead idea try to at least make like a third of a real argument
@@ghastlyghandi4301 I can see from these replies that you haven’t sufficiently researched the Soviet-Axis talks…
@@testda6522
Look up how the USSR was trying to start an anti-German coalition since 1934, and consistently took action against it, while the other European powers were helping Germany.
I had a History Teacher that Straight up refused to say "Molotov-Ribbentropt Pact"
What did he say then?
Childish ahh behavior
So what did he say instead?
Hitler-Stalin pack or some dumb shit like it
Speech impediment was it?
Imagine how Lenin would've looked like if he had access to Keeps®.
Like hasan..
goddammit 😂
but..Baba was hot anyway, commitment to health like that is attractive on principle 🤭
@@WhySoSquid One might argue it's kind of a reverse-Samson situation if you (don't) think about it.
It's people like yourself who scare people away from communism @@WhySoSquid
To add some context. Not that the video is wrong, it is just a complement.
Part of Ribbentrop-Molotov was stimulated by the probable aggression of the Japanese empire in the East. Since 1932, border clashes between USSR and Japan was occurring in the Mongolian region and far east Soviet Union. And in november 1936 Japan and Germany signed anti-comintern pact (and that is alliance pact!). Note, during the civil war, the powers invaded USSR through the port of Vladyvostok (the eastern most of Russia SSR). So, the soviets had a crushing fear of been invaded in two fronts, and they're already fighting japan on, yet they halted the japanese progress. But a simultaneous invasion in the west of Ukraine, Belarus borders and in the far East in Mongolia and Siberia still a threat. SO, ANY BUYED TIME WAS PRECIOUS!
I'll not extend myself, so I do reccomend the book 'The Soviet Union and the Threat from the east (1933 - 1941)' HASLAM, Jonathan.
Keep your nice job Hakim, cheers from a brazilian comrade!
But what is a strategic victory compared to a moral one? The soviets should have followed some liberal moral ideal and lost instead. That way no one would accuse them of being Nazis! (/j, this is the liberal in the room)
Always convenient how we leave Japan and China out of things until "Muh Pearl Harbour got blowed up!". I mean, we call it the Sino-Japanese War, but what we really mean is "calling it the start of World War Two doesn't make us feel special enough".
Even more in the moment when the pact was signed the battle at river Khalgin-gol was going and it wasn't clear who would win in it. The M-R Pact caused even crisis in Japanese government: supporters of idea of war against USSR war changed by "sea clique" that will start a war with USA. As a result in April of 1941 a non-agression pact was signed between USSR and Japan
@@АзарХаликов-у7з Yes, at that time the Japanese military was highly divided between the Army, who wanted to fight the USSR on land, and the Navy, who wanted to expand south into the various European colonies in the Pacific. The M-R Pact completely discredited the Army clique in the Japanese government and saved the USSR from having to fight a 2-front war.
@@sasho_b.Moral have no place in inter-state relationship, unfortunately
Genuine question: how does the katyn massacre fit into all this?
It does not. This is a video from a tankie smoothbrain teisting anything he can
And he even has the gaul to call a russo german pact anything other than the thing it says it is in the most basic way
Its a fucking pact wether he likes it or not
I'm surprised it's not even mentioned
@@dreadfullyDistinct683 Surprised? Really??
Genuine question: Why would it be relevant to the claim that Hitler and Stalin had a defense pact?
Surely, USSR can commit atrocities without automatically being in cahoots with Nazi Germany?
How does a nazi crime fit into this?
I always remember Neville Chamberlain declaring "Peace in our time" after his visit with Hitler and thinking, all these liberals really did seem to believe that Hitler was fine.
Liberals opposed fascism from the very start! Greatest NOT-ideology, (because capitalism is just innate to human nature), Churchill greatest swine ever.
Yeah and he is viewed as the worst prime minister in British history until recently what’s your point?
@@allergy5634 That he's basically not mentioned by comparison to the "Hitler - Stalin Pact"
@@noheroespublishing1907probably because British troops didn’t partake in the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
@@allergy5634 They didn't have too, they neither lived next to it, nor was under threat of invasion because it was invaded. Were the British arguing that military support should be used against Germany after its invasion, or that a joint Anti-Fascist alliance should be established?
18 views in one Minute Bro Fell off
They was also an economic agreement between the USSR and Germany to trade resources
@@randomhuman2595 And ?
@@konstantinkelekhsaev302 Why was Stalin giving that country resources?
@@randomhuman2595 Why ? For the same reason everyone else did.
@konstantinkelekhsaev302 Just because something was common, does not make it okay. Slave labour was still common in that era, that doesn't justify slave labour
I'm not arguing your point here, just curious what the explanation for the katyan massacre is??
I guess saving the minorities and the proletariat
The Germans did the Katyn massacre not the Soviets.
@@UmQasaann Lmao
@@sheepshoe The documents in the Soviet archives were forged by Gorbachev to demonize Stalin, the German were the ones that carried it out, the bullets inside of the polish officers were traced and were fired by Walther PP and PPK fire arms.
Nazi Germany conquered Poland in 1939 and committed many massacres that looked very similar in nature to Katyn's in the following years. It was their modus operandi across Europe to shoot civilians (including children) from the back in front of a mass grave, both of which were unheard of from the Soviet Union. In 1943, as the Nazis were being pushed back from the USSR by the Red Army, they discovered the site and alerted the public. In Joseph Goebbels' diaries from May 1943, he mentions that German munitions were found lodged in the bodies, but was initially unaware of German involvement. Goebbels launched an extensive campaign to publicize the massacre and attribute it to the Soviets. He likely hoped to drive a wedge between the Allied forces to buy some time from an imminent defeat. The Nazis claimed that the massacre had been committed in 1940, which would have been before their arrival, but most of the bullets found inside the graves were of German manufacture produced no earlier than 1941.
Goebbel himself write this in his diary : "Unfortunately German munitions were found in the graves of Katyn. The question of how they got there needs clarification. It is either a case of munitions sold by us during the period of our friendly arrangement with the Soviet Russians, or of the Soviets themselves throwing these munitions into the graves. In any case it is essential that this incident be kept top secret. If it were to come to the knowledge of the enemy the whole Katyn affair would have to be dropped.”
Can you talk about "appeasement" narrative and how it's weird af and fits with the common western imperialist idea of "west does good things, it just goes badly"
Great way of putting this! I hope Hakim sees this!
Great topic and framing!
I safely assume that no one nowadays talks positively about appeasement
@@MassimoVas yes... But it's still presented as west having good intentions and just failing in western mainstream, like the liberals talk about iraq war
@@MassimoVas The problem isn't that it's perceived good or bad, but for what reasons it is so. Same as libеrals with i r a q war
"But... but... muh horseshoe theory..." Some Liberal, somewhere, probably.
So fucking many horseshoe liberals......man, that argument is so bad and yet so many believe it.
"Okay commie, if the Nazis weren't socialist, then why were they called the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS? Hmm? Exactly, checkmate commie!"
Definitely
Stalin is the final boss of horseshoe dogma. Every anti-communist talking point leads back to some bullshit talking point about Stalin.
Can't expect much from a tankie XD
I like the way british monarchy is called Western Democracy
They just love anything that reminds them of their Empire. It's the same thing with "their" tea.
@@lucianofrancesco4742 personally cultivated by h her majesty herself 😂😂😂
@@Treasure_hunter_21I think you mean His Majesty.
@@Treasure_hunter_21she dead dude
the fuck is this revisionist history dude
typical of commies
This banger will become my "Don't make me tap the sign" whenever I see somebody bringing up the 'Stalin was a bestie with Hitler' talking points 😌🖐️🔴🚨
Unfortunately, Stalin supported the establishment of Israel and did nothing to stop it.. Now the poor Palestinians are suffering..
@@king.g-l1g Way to obfuscate the truth. The USSR supported the establishment of the Jewish State on the basis of liberation, Jewish self-determination and protection from the Nazi, but still drew an obvious line on the State of Palestine. Like, let's not gloss over the fact that the USSR was full on supporting Egypt, Syria and the PLO/PFLP (Palestinian communist) in their Arab socialist cause at the time.
@@king.g-l1g indeed, and that is probably one of the worst mistakes of socialist states, specifically those in Eastern Europe. A fatal consequence of not applying decolonial theory to their Marxist worldview.
At least they provided help later on to arabs state, but the damage had already been done.
@@king.g-l1g It was a mistake, which they later tried to compensate for by backing the Arab states. Still a horrible mistake nonetheless.
@@GuyWhoLikesTheSnarkies1435 The West says the same thing, supports Israel on the basis of “freedom and democracy” It seems that capitalists, socialists, and communists disagree on everything except their unconditional support for Israel
Common Communist L from Hakim himself Lmao
Lonerbox is a necrofile that sucks at being a propagandist lol try harder liberal
One cannot understand this Pact without mentioning:
-The invasion of the young USSR by Everybody & their Mama
-The Soviet intervention in the Spanish civil war
-The Soviet inetrvention in favor of China against Japan
-The annexation of Austria and the Czech Republic by Germany
-The frequent calls in Britain to "smother the baby in its crib" etc.
-The fact that Marshall Tukhachevsky, while on the Nazi's payroll, was geating up for a war against a VERY threatening Britain
-The desperate attempt by the USSR to secure an alliance with Britain and France
-The Soviet victory at Khalkhin Gol only days before this treaty was signed
-The fact that members of the German High Command were appalled by the fact that they would apparently have to face a two-front war against Poland one the one side and Frace & Britain on the other and actually tried to assasinate Hitler
-The treacherous wording of the British who guaranteed the indipendence but not the territorial integrity of Poland
-The fact that the British waited for two days before even declaring war and then didn't really do anything
-The Sitzkrieg/Phony war/drôle guerre
Man that was a long list!
As for the "two extreme" theory, much like the rest of "The road to serfdom" it is just rubbish that does not stand up to scrutiny
What about the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1920?
What about the Soviet inetrvention in Space and Soviet inetrvention in peaceful nuclear energy ?
@@ThePawcios ... you mean the polish military incursion in Belarus and Ukraine which was an attempt at restoring the borders of 1770 even though the land was mainly inhabited by Ukrainians and Belorussians, which led directly to the Red Army marching against them?
The Intermarium project was an attempt of the polish army to grab as much land as they could from the dying russian empire which the red army honestly had a more solid claim on, and it was an incredibly stupid attempt that could have ended Poland in the crib if it was not for infighting within Soviet High Command which led to the Miracle on the Vistula.
@@alexandertheok5649you mean the incursion by both Polish and ukrainian forces that wanted to establish a federation of Poland, ukraine and belarus? because that was the goal of Józef Piłsudski.
@@ussindianapolis487 a "federation" led by Poland and where Poland would have primacy lmao. And dont ask the Ukrainian Red Army what they thought about all that lmao.
As a Lithuanian, I was taught that the pact is why Lithuania got occupied by the USSR. The USSR saying the countries willingly joined the union and the pact being hidden from the soviet public are also important for Lithuania's historical narrative.
Unfortunately, the USSR supported the establishment of Israel and did nothing to stop it.. Now the Palestinians are suffering..
The pact divided eastern Europe as well, given the soviets green light to enter and take over Baltic states and modern day moldova
Įdomu, kiek lietuvių yra socialistai
And this is the thing I hoped to hear talked about in the video. It's important for socialist content creator's to also point out flaws with old socialist systems to make sure we wouldn't make those mistakes again. Socialism should be anti imperialist system
What the bots be doing in the replies bruv 💀💀
I invite anyone reading to checkout LonerBox videos about Hakim's "work", say the one about Ukraine and the West. I mean, the level of disinformation on Hakim's channel is insane. The guy cherry-picks, misinterprets the data, smuggles in unreliable sources, sprinkles it with Soviet aesthetic and calls himself a revolutionary. Pathetic.
Lonerbox uses vibes while Hakim uses dates and receipts. Lonerbox sucks ate the be a propagandist. Lmfao
@@UmQasaann Literally Hakim didn't put a single source here, just feelings and baby crying. In LonerBox'es video he literally pull and discuss everything Hakim's talking about. But you're a fan of Hakim so you'd never get the importance of reliable narrative to live in your bubble.
@@SevenEightSE LonerBox is a Zionist supporting the Schutzstaffel IDF massacring children in Gaza. Liberals are not leftists but closeted fascists using left-wing aesthetics.
@@SevenEightSE LonerBox is a necrofile Zionist supporting the Schutzstaffel IDF that is terrorizing Gaza
@@UmQasaannEven if he is wrong on that part, it doesn't make him wrong on that Hakim videos are trash. It's literally bending facts so they would fit the narrative.
Is this a Russian propaganda channel?
nah
No it's the truth
@@UmQasaann are you Russian?
@@Gypsum179I'm Native American
@@UmQasaann ah. So this is a propaganda channel then
It was objectively better for the Soviets to hold the East of former Poland (which was also former SSRs Belarus and Ukraine) than let the Axis be even more built up when hostilities commenced
Makes ya wonder what kind of strategy the leaders of G.B. and France were thinking? Were they hoping that they could fuck over everyone east of Germany and then.........profit?
@Shinshocks555 poles would be killed because hitler wanted to kill the slavs, poles are slavs, poland also had many jews, jews would be killed etc. less killing under the soviets meaning better, and ethnically that part of poland was not polish, etc,.
@Shinshocks555they saved half of Poland from the nazis
And why did they kill 20,000 Polish officers in Katyń?
@@BarackLesnarSaved? The soviet's did more damage to Poland than the Nazis.
I think i just found the communist zoomer historian 😂😂😂😂
Actually a genius comparison. Zoomers audience are mostly made up of people who try to revise Nazi history, and here Hakim is doing the same, but for the USSR.
@@DjDeadpig how on earth is this revisionism?
What about to economic parts of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the other economic pacts of the time? Were the economic provisions necessitated and demanded by Germany or were they mutually desired. And in the end which state benefited the most by them. I would like to hear your perception on it.
Oh FFS! Well, why would polish be unwilling to make pact with USSR? Probably cos of their invasion in 1919? Noooooo that's only cos polish propaganda badmouthing USSR xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Yeah, I agree, Poland invaded Ukraine and wanted to control more land which belonged to USSR))
@@danielk934 dude, stop smoking what you smoke. You got delusional xD
@@endryju1 explain to me how Polish army appeared near Kiev?
Why Poland took Vilnius? War started when Poland sieged Vilnius, city which wasn’t Polish.
You realize it was Poland who declared war in 1919?
@@endryju1 Poland declared invaded these regions in 1919, hence it's called "Polish-Soviet war" The agressor is always mentioned first.
The most superficial look at the matter already made your point moot because you beleive the exact opposite of reality. Yeah, take your own advice, stop smoking whatever you smoke.
“The soviets had no agreement to partition Poland with Germany.”
Proceeds to showing a secret provision in the agreement for the Soviet Union and Germany to partition Poland
Like??
@@SarveshMunde-qx9vb article 2 the only thing he showed. There’s no way to miss it
@@gripti0n224 YEP.. the terms of what to do in case a war or a conflict were to break out were written in article 2.. if you wanna read into the document.. go on.. debunk it
@@SarveshMunde-qx9vb I don’t need to debunk anything article 2 seems pretty clear
@@gripti0n224 then how is he wrong lmao?? 😅
This is such a horrible historical revisionist cope.
- nazi
@@eeeertoo2597 "REEEE my dictatorship that hasn't existed for 30 years is under attack!!! NAZI!!!"
- 🤡
Care to explain
here in england we just learn that the pact was like, an agreeement to invade poland, and not anything else lols
Yep, German Schoolbooks tell the exact same lie. But considering who decides what books are selected for curriculum, the same Nazis that committed the atrocities, it is no surprise at all. What is remarkable, the fascists are losing massive ground due to the web. The reason why both the European and American fascists want to ban TikTok, it is endangering the narrative. And considering that the idiot Romney recently dropped it's all about Propaganda Control regarding Palestine, they will push again. It seems like a 100 year cycle. The fascists lull the people with their bullshit, until they think the populace is sedated enough not to care and they try again to remove all advancements that were achieved. They will try again, USA and Europa are already preparing to announce their dictatorships.
I doubt any history course on Earth even mentions how the Brits and the Poles torpedoed Soviet attempts at Anglo-Soviet security pact.
That was part of the pact, they directly said that they would do a joint occupation of poland
@@randomspid3r142 ik ik but over in england the pact is shown as noithing but that part, when it was also a non-agression pact
@@lavenderdasillykitty
I don't know what you're even talking about, its always been presented as "non-aggression pact" as well. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had a secret protocol that the Soviets tried (very hard) to deny after World War 2 and when it was revealed was extremely embarrassing to the Soviets (it was never formally admitted until 1989). The fact that there was a secret protocol and that this secret protocol included annexing large parts of Eastern Europe should tell you something. As always, Hakim is just doing his job of cleaning Stalin's ass and nothing more - he is just an influencer making money off of stupid Western Stalinists.
I watched this abomination so that you don't have to and here is a short summary:
"There was no secret pact! Well there was, but it wasn't about splitting Poland"
"USSR had no intention to invade Poland! Well they did, but they didn't want to" (no mention of Baltic states and Finland which were also in the same document given to USSR and, oh what a coincidence, were also invaded by USSR. So much invasion by someone who doesn't want to invade)
"USSR was nice to Polish people" (no mention of Katyn and other atrocities)
"Polish people were generally happy about USSR" (no mention why Poles even 80 years later hate them so dearly)
Oh and of course no mention of joint military parade both allies - the Soviets and Nazis, held in Brest-Litovsk after successfully splitting Poland. To be honest for a document that supposedly does not exist (meaning the secret protocols), it very accurately predicted what will happen later...
The video is omitting fact that to non-aggression was attached additional document dividing eastern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) between nazis and USSR.... That is the root of the collaboration :P
good thing he literally mentioned it
Someone didnt even watch the video lmao
@@eeeertoo2597 I watched it all, I recomend you to use history books to learn about history. Not random YTubers.
@@ThePawciosyou couldnt comprehend a video i doubt you do much better with books😂
@@ThePawcios Nor a random Wikipedia article.
Based as hell, I'm sure the reactionaries will be screaming about this.
They already do
r/historymemes is coping so hard rn
the most braindead video on youtube
the molotov PACT is just wat it says it is
I don’t agree with the author of the video, but this is a bad argument. The point of the video is to exploit the misconception that a lot of less informed people have about the MR pact. That it was some sort of alliance between the two powers rather than just an agreement of mutual benefit. He then adds some additional context (while leaving other context out) and voilà, you are able to produce a somewhat convincing narrative for your audience.
This sort of exploitation of misconceptions is very common is historical revisionists who seek to promote certain narratives about figures/countries. The misconceptions being debunked sow doubt in the mind of the listener and allow the author to fill in the new gap of information with their own explanation, which will be readily accepted.
My OCD kicks in when I see historical maps and they don't match timeline at all. 2:35 map of Germany (1933) with eastern region but no East Prussia and USSR with Russian (1991-2014 minus Kalingrad oblast) borders excluding Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Yeah sadly my editor couldn't make them accurate, hence the note at the bottom of the screen.
@@YaBoiHakim What about the documents found when the soviet files were opened in the 90’s? Dont they show there was a pact to divide conquered territory between the ussr and germany during WW2?
@@Rob-h3w
Of course they do. But comrade, the fact they exist doesn't mean they happened! What a joke Stalinists are.
Hakim your vids were one of the reasons I joined my local communist party. Thank you habibi!
😂😂😂 your parents must be really proud of you
Same
16 days after the Nazis invaded Poland, on 17 September 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Poland without a declaration of war and occupied eastern Poland.
On 28 September 1939, the two warring parties signed the German-Soviet Border and Friendship Treaty, which defined the new borders in Eastern Europe and brought "ethnic Germans" who had been living in the Soviet Union "back to the Reich" .
There was also significant economic co-operation between the Nazis and Soviets until 1941 the Soviet Union supplied Germany with grain, oil, cotton and chrome ore worth around 500 million Reichsmarks, which accounted for 52% of the Soviet Union's total exports. The Third Reich gave industrial goods and war machines in exchange.
The supplies of raw materials from the Soviet Union enabled Germany to continue the war. In 1940, the Third Reich obtained 74% of its imported phosphates, 67% of its asbestos, 64% of its chromium, 55% of its manganese, 40% of its nickel and 34% of its crude oil from the Soviet Union.
That seems like quite the cooperation between the USSR and Nazi Germany.
The allies shoild've probably cooperated with the soviets more
@@eeeertoo2597 Since the Allies did not have hindsight and the soviets were as much a possible threat to them as the Nazis, not cooperating with the Soviets from the get go made political sense for the time. When the Germans turned on the Soviets in 1941 however the United States immediatly made large efforts to support the Soviet Union through lend-lease with food, oil and material, which relieved the Soviets mostly in logistical issues and ressources.
@@celestialoof6346 Yeah because liberals will always take fascists over leftists, which is pretty telling, but no, they knew the Germans were a threat, hence the appeasement "strategy"
@@celestialoof6346 From what you said, doesn't it also make sense for the time that, given the absolute failure fo negotiations with the Allies, that the Soviets would try to gain as much time as possible before the guaranteed coming invasion, and in that sense make concessions to the Nazis in the form of the reciprocal trade you mentioned? And weren't the Allies also as much of a threat for the USSR as the USSR was to them? Why are the allies given the benefit of hindsight and self-defense and the USSR isn't? And if it was a cooperation pact, what were they actually cooperating towards to?
@@rubensousa9216 I never said that the Soviets had hindsight. But to supply the German War machine and carve up eastern Europe together is not a concession, that is aggression against eastern Europe, even if this was a way to forestall the Germans from invading the Soviet Union. If the Soviets hadn't supplied the Nazis, then the Nazis wouldn't even have had the capability to conquer the rest of Europe and start an invasion against the USSR in the first place.
The last part made me want to double dislike the video
Got an advertisement from the Hoover Institute promoting their free book on the "History of Socialism and Capitalism" lmao.
Ur ridiculous Hakim
If it wasn't for Stalin's policies and the Red Army you clowns would be speaking German right now.
@@UmQasaann You mean if Hitle* didn't invade the USSR we would have spoken German because otherwise Stalin wouldn't involve himself.
Lonerbox debunked you lolz
Lmao, Lonerbox. Good for him, he's reading something atleast.
BonerBox uses vibes while Hakim uses dates and receipts lol
As someone very interested in history it just sucks that some people actually believe that this (Molotov-Ribbentrop) was an alliance rather than a way to continue the Soviet neutrality for as long as they possibly could
Do people not realize that Non-Aggression Pacts, by design, are mostly for nations whom are at threat of fighting each other. If they wanted to ally themselves, they would actually have fully seriously dedicated their resources to such and sign a pact of Military Alliance, NOT a Non-Aggression Pact. Hitler's dialogue of the USSR made this very obviously impossible, even if Stalin (or the other Political figures because Stalin wasn't a one-man dictatorship) wanted to.
It was an alliance. Saying that the "non-aggression Pact" was "merely" a non-aggression pact is absurd on its face. If it was that, Molotov and Stalin wouldn't have worked so hard to deny the secret protocols in the agreement (which in and of itself should be a clue that it wasn't "just" a non-aggression pact). Moreover, the USSR provided a lifeline to Nazi Germany during the early stages of the war. Nazi Germany was running an oil deficit every single year of the war, but the USSR supplied the Germans with oil in huge quantities after the British initiated their naval blockade (which would have resulted in Germany losing the war in the long run). The sad part of it is that this oil is what enabled Germany to even invade the USSR in the first place. The invasion of 1941 would not have been possible without Soviet oil. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940).
@@RTWPimpmachine first off, you cited Wikipedia so already off to a bad start, but second I didn't say it was just an NAP I didn't directly address the secret protocols, but I didn't deny their existence either. What I said was that this was a way to ensure Soviet neutrality after the west was unwilling to work with them (at the time). I know about the oil transfers and deals between them, this doesn't mean that the Soviets Allied with the Nazis. An alliance entails that the Soviets would have joined the Axis in WW2 to fight the Allies (which obviously didn't happen) but rather the pact's purpose was to ensure both sides didn't declare war on one another and it accomplished this by setting up spheres of influence. I personally don't believe this was a good move by the Soviet government and rather belive it would have been better to attempt to attack Germany and help the uncooperative Allies. No, I'm not making this argument because I'm a communist, it's just basic history knowledge that it was not an alliance against anything, it was to preserve the peace between the 2 as long as possible.
Communist lie millions die. You are not interested in history you are interested in rewriting it to fit your ideology and that of the other red fascists in here. Hakim is a propagandist and cares not about history. This far left rewriting of history is no different than the far right trying to do the same. Extremist have to lie and always lie otherwise there is never a justification for the hate they spread and the power they want to grab.
@@RTWPimpmachineIts weird how its zo obviously an alliance but not even the anti soviet western historians say that it was an alliance.. infact, nobody does
Hi Hakim, great video, just one issue!! My mother was born in Poland in 1989 and she told me that Stalin came to her house the day she was born and stole all of our families spoons (which they were going to use to eat babies!!) We live in a spoon free household now, and have to tear our babies apart with our fingernails :(
--- THAN YOU, FOR YOUR SERVICE AS COMIC RELIEF . . . I never understood anti-Semitism as a dietary system.
This would be funny if less than 99.9% of poles actually believed this happened.
@@yaelz6043 Considering how many Poles were killed by the USSR, very possible.
@@Liber112 look at you, repeating whatever goebbels and McCarthy tell you to. Pathetic.
@@yaelz6043 look at you, denying and mocking socialist atrocities because stupid proles keep acknowledging them
Worth mentioning that the Axis frontline army outnumbered the USSR 2-1 at the beginning of Barbarossa
But muh soviet human waverinos!11
Yeah that is correct. The Axis forces maintained manpower and firepower advantage during the first phase of the war.
@@kazaddum2448Hollywood-sponsored revisionism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
There were also multiple countries involved in invading the USSR as well, not just one (like they claim to as well).
Germans had 3000 tanks, Soviets ad 15.000, germany had 4000 airplanes, soviets 40.000
On 25 November 1940, the Soviet Union offered a written counter-proposal to join the Axis if Germany would agree to refrain from interference in the Soviet Union's sphere of influence, but Germany did not respond.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
These proposals were understood as feints and deception by both sides, as both sides were already at low intensity war (proxy wars) against each other in multiple theatres, and their ideologies and long term goals clashed severely.
Yes, there was. It included trade agreements (there was even a second commercial treaty in 1940) and secret protocols that led to the occupation of Poland, the Baltics, and the invasion of Finland.
As well as prisoner exchange and handing back of defectors
Nice HOI4 knowledge of history bro
@@eeeertoo2597 Is anything wrong?
@@eeeertoo2597 cope
It's really quite pointless to debunk every bit of anti-communist propaganda that's based on historical events of the past. It's always a manipulation either way, even if the historical event that they're using was indeed not a lie, but some horrible mistake or even crime that happened under a socialist government. The thing is that reactionary propaganda always pulls the ol' switcharoo - it criticizes an isolated event (no matter if the critique is valid or not), and then makes a sophistic, intentionally misleading claim that "therefore, socialism is bad", whereas to properly criticize socialism at its core, one has to analyze its overall tendencies, properties and contradictions. On that field, reactionary propaganda only has lies and asinine ridiculous falsifications, i.e. "everyone's poor, miserable and hungry under socialism", etc. Honest communist propagandists never blame capitalism for isolated individual events, instead pointing out tendencies, because such is the materialist approach to analyzing history (and contemporary events too, for that matter). For example, we blame capitalism as a system for the Nazis, because when we analyze the material root cause of their emergence, we see that fascism is the terrorist dictatorship of the financial capital, in times of systemic crises and when large capital feels seriously threatened in general. I.e. while there's capitalism and boom/bust cycles that come with it, there'll always be potential for future Hitlers and Pinochets.
LOL so instead of admitting your genocidal dictatorship was a genocidal dictatorship, you dismiss all the evidence as "manipulated"
that's some next level bootlicking
and you people unironically think you're different from the "it wasn't 6 million" crowd...🤡🤡
I remember audibly sighing when the alliance between the fascistic Krill and the theocratic Moclan was compared to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in The Orville. Damn you, Seth MacFarlane...
Bro's in his lead paint drinking phase rn, with the amount of disinformation his spewing
So read his sources, discredit him with proper arguments, instead of trying to personally attack him and discredit him by saying he drinks lead paint. Typical Fascist, shame on you
@@kxbelsalat6390don’t be surprised by the quality of “rebuttals.” I call it “when in doubt, just gaslight.” Making your opponent think is way better then having to think yourself.
Tankie tears
Slava Stalin! 🚩☭
Nice Tankie-Propaganda you got there.
And there are so many tankies here, so many potential traitors to their countries. Hopefully the security services of these tankies' nations are watching them closely.
Or course, no political movement survives without propaganda.
HOI4 players are malding rn
Why?
No, they're too busy isntalling analysing spreadsheets to even realise this video exists
Dennying and rewriting history, classic communism 🟥🟥❤️❤️
@@NterpriseCEO Yaa HOI4 Doesn't generate many Stalin Apologists.
not at all im just doing bhutan wc
(Political) Right and Left are not a "continuum". They are two irreconcilable opposites where the right is the past of left, a rightist is someone that whose political positions come from fear, a leftist that have left those fears behind and is one step above in the stairs of evolution towards absolute conscience.
The horseshoe theory is so weird. Just look at a horseshoe and see the unbridged gap between the two extremities...? How can they say they "touch" each other? ^^'
Wow, you casually pulled the best way to explain it 😂
Despite the differences between the left and the right, they agree on one issue, which is their unconditional support for🇮🇱
@@king.g-l1g you're confusing liberals with leftists.
@@king.g-l1g Thats the right that support Israel, don't mix us up with damn Liberals.
next video of Hakim: There was never a "Holodomor".
Tl;dr The Soviet famine of 1932 was caused by drought and kulak sabotage.
@@UmQasaann explain it to some of my ancestors from southern russia, they were the victims of holodomor, many of their relatives died due to the famine
@@bsod111 No one is denying that there was a famine.
He does have a video denying holodomor he just deleted it
@@UmQasaannyes, it was caused by Stalin
I love your work so much! But please, can you slow down? I can't keep up with what you're saying because you speed through your speaking so fast in every video. That's my only gripe. Other than that, please keep up the great work you do. Solidarity ✊
You change the speed unless smarttv.
@@gislimagnusson5275 I didn't know I could do that lol. But yeah, I've been watching on my TV
I like the fast talking pace but thats propably because i am a fast talker as well
@@Galaxy-oy4nj It may work for some and I respect that. I don't mean to cause an argument or upset anyone 😞.
@@comradegerm5332 yeah its fine, I understand that a majority of people are not like me in this matter.
Tankie try not to justify Soviet imperialism challenge (impossible)
"imperialism" lmao
Liberal try not to justify Western colonialist imperialism challenge (impossible)
@@Albtraum_TDDC I agree - I’m not a liberal though, just a socialist who knows that the Soviet Union wasn’t socialist.
imperialism🤣🤣
Stalin attacking Poland and literally exterminating Polish intelligentsia to install a foreign rule over Poland.
Tankies in the replies - "imperialism 😂"
Don't forget, that in secret pact they also splitted Baltic Countries as well, as we were already independent country. So we were invaded as well
Its so sad that there are people who will watch this genuinely trying to learn and just be fed constant lies and dishonesty
Who tf tries to learn objective and nuanced history from a rabid ideologue?
@@SHVRWK people could easily stumble on the video without knowing who hakim is.
@@SHVRWKyoure both nazis lmao, youre the rabid ideologues in question
@@eeeertoo2597
Nazis were your allies Rember that ;)
@@eeeertoo2597most open minded hasan fan.
Bro litteraly calls everyone a nazi because they dont want to deny that stalin killed millions.
Your are litteraly the same as the people you so desperately despise. Nazis deny holocaust, you deny holodomor, stalins reppresions and the killing of millions of people by the hands of communists.
The language of the pact very clearly states an agreement to partition Poland between Germany and the USSR. You constantly act as an apologist for the USSR in ways that are completely disingenuous and it's concerning in that it seems you'd support all the same actions if they were done again. There seems to be streak of dogmatic thinking in you when it comes to former socialist experiments. The fact is that the ussr ended up becoming imperialist in their own ways and they never moved beyond capitalism. Maintaining state capitalism as well as some levels of private ownership only led to the ussr moving back toward private capitalism over time. They never even breached into common ownership, nevermind approaching communism. Be real, this kind of thinking is far to common among communists and that causes me to worry about the viability of future socialist experiments. If we follow failed experiments we'll only fail again.
western leftists love to fetishize USSR imagery and ignore war crimes.
This
this exactly, someone removed my comment but it said; Western Leftists love to fetishize USSR imagery and ignore war crimes.
The USSR was Russian imperialist from the time of its inception to the time it fell.
🥱 done yapping?
Not only were the eastern parts of pre-war poland ethnically different - they were also radicalized to the extreme. We could see the rotten fruits of that among movements such as OUN-UPA, responsible for "gaming" that would put even Pol Pot or Leopold 2nd of Belgium to shame.
Why were they radicalized, maybe something to with Polish settler policy.
@@theshakhrayist7649 Bandera himself was half polish and half Greek catholic if I recall correctly.
@@Treasure_hunter_21 Bandera was the son of an Orthodox priest, so not Greek-Catholic, and he never identified with Poland.
I mean, the video is kinda misleading.
These territories still had large Polish populations, for example:
-Grodno, Wilno (today Vilnius) and the regions surrounding them were ethnically Polish.
-Lwów (Today Lviv) was majority Polish, but the regions surrounding them were Ukrainian, the city however was one of the biggest Polish cultural centers.
@@thepotatogod2951 Yup, exactly. People acting as if Poland illegally occupied those territories whereas they had just as much right to it as Ukraine, Lithuania etc. All this ethnic mixing in those areas is a direct result of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its multicultural and tolerant approach which was unfortunately lost and replaced by homogenous ethnic states. Under this model ethnic tensions were bound to happen sooner or later.
There is an excellent documentary by french-german channel ARTE called justthat : "The Hitler-Stalin pact". You might think it's the usual UE liberal bs but nope. It goes through years of diplomatic blunders and cowardice by the UK and France while the soviet diplomacy grows more and more frustrated with them, having pushed from the start for a "collective security" pragmatic alliance. It is told by the point of view of the soviet union diplomat in London Ivan Maisky. There is no english version or even subtitles of it but for those who understand french or german, it really is an eye-opener.
Thank you for getting Historical records straight Brother Hakim.
It was Soviet Union which offered sending troops to Czechoslovakia and stop Nazi invasion while Western Imperialism celebrated Munich betrayal because they prefer fascists rather than growing working class movement
And then USSR along side the nazis invaded Poland...
This the biggest pile of unhistoric bullshit I've come across in years!
enlighten us buddy
@@popplers5entropy647 Let's start with the title. So Molotov and Ribbentrot just got together and agreed the pact on their own without orders from Hitler and Stalin, who presumably never knew about it and didn't OK the deal!!! Utter garbage. Then he goes on to argue that the horseshoe theory was trash, when it's the idiotic linear theory that's trash. The version of Marxist-Lenninism that Stalin practiced, often referred to as Stalinism, was indeed in practice and outcome not that different from National-Socialism. They were the opposite sides of the same coin!!!!
PS Is this idiotic video historical revisionist crap on behalf of Stalin or Hitler, difficult to judge from some of the looney-tune comments!!
@@ronwilson9815 nobody said Stalin and Hitler "didn't OK the deal" (Molotov and Ribbentrop "pact" was a non-aggression agreement, it was not a military Alliance). Nowhere in the video does it say that, and no one else has claimed that to my knowledge or in the comments.
You sound like a conspiracy nutjob.
Your support of the numerously debunked horseshoe theory doesn't bode well either. It reeks of injecting massive amounts of propaganda and brainwashing. You should watch a few more videos on this channel and try to break out of your bubble.
@@ronwilson9815 so much emotional crying, it is politics, girl. Politics is always about deals and agreements, before 1939 Poland was trying to achieve unity with Germany, they even invaded Czechoslovakia together, while USSR was protesting against it.
This video angered all the right people on reddit
I really hate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but I have no idea what I would have done instead if I was in the USSR's position.
Not split up Poland. Ally with the Allies earlier. Not send oil, raw materials, and grain to a nation you were supposedly expecting to fight a war against.
@@Razzanonymous damn. if only the USSR had attempted some kind of diplomacy with France and Britain, like something to try and ensure their Collective Security. shame they didn't do that and just immediately went for a non-aggression pact with Germany before considering any other options. it's a real shame that they didn't do literally anything else. i wonder how the video you are commenting on contends with this failure on the part of the USSR to even attempt to pursue Collective Security. there really should be a section of the video that directly addresses this topic
how you gonna ally with the allies if theyre unwilling?? @@Razzanonymous
The same thing Britain and France did--security guarantees for Poland. Germany in 1939 was not ready for a two-front war, and Poland would've given stronger resistance without fighting on both sides, never mind if it received Soviet support.
@@samuelwithers2221Soviets offered that anti-Hitler alliance repeatedly, and offered to protect Czechoslovakia, but Poland, Britain, and France refused these offers repeatedly. Also bear in mind that the Slovaks and Lithuanians took their own pieces of Poland when the Germans attacked. If the Soviets had stayed out, Poland would have been carved up 3 ways instead of 4 ways, and the Ukrainians and Belarusians who lived under Polish occupation would have traded that for German and maye Slovak and Lithuanian occupation instead of being reunited with the Belarusian and Ukrainian republics.
I'm sorry. Soviets came to save Polish? They saved 22.000 Polish military officers and intelligentsia and then buried them in the woods.
they were shot by Germans, Nuremberg trial has announced that, do you doubt Nuremberg trial results?
The Germans did the Katyn massacre not the Soviets.
@@UmQasaann are you ok?
Last time I've checked NKWD weren't Germans.
Simply don't talk about things you don't have a clue, ok?
@@longjones The documents in the Soviet archives were forged by Gorbachev to demonize Stalin, the German were the ones that carried it out, the bullets inside of the polish officers were traced and were fired by Walther PP and PPK fire arms.
The Red Army wasn't even is present in the Katyn Forest. The human rights court of the European Union has analysis the document and said that is was forgery.
@@UmQasaann right. Besides, killing enemy professional soldiers is what routinely happens in wars around the world even today. This whole affair keeps being presented with such emotional overtones as if it were some kind of atrocity against innocent babies.
The reality: A bunch of career professional soldiers, experienced killers, leaders of killer teams whose job was to order people to kill other people as effectively and efficiently as possible, who had just finished killing thousands of foreigners in a war were themselves killed.
Thank god you made this. Whenever I try to tell people about this and how like the USSR and Nazis were diametrically opposed they don’t believe me
Just because they are diametrically opposed doesn’t mean they can’t work together for common goals
@@TutuBoy-835 did you watch the video?
@@sevrinbrown3821 Yes, now address what I said. Don’t hide behind Hakim
@@sevrinbrown3821The Molotov-Ribbentrob pact was real, except it wasn't a military pact. It was more of a non aggression pact, both Germany and the Soviets were expansionist, Germany was fighting a massive war and needed resources at the time. So they signed a non aggression pact and both parties expanded, until there was no more land to expand into without risking war. Which is when Germany broke the pact.
@@TutuBoy-835 I mean I don’t think the Russians were attempting to ethnically cleanse an area to allow for their people to settle. I believe like Hakim said that it was more an attempt to shield a number of ethnically Russian and Ukrainian people living in Poland. Which like the video said, definitely had mistakes, but I do think the Russians were definitely attempting to do something morally good, while the Nazis were doing something pretty evil
This is REALLY bad... This is holocaust denial.
Lmao at least try to refute any of his points.
@@elisgus135 I did twice and the comment got deleted or didn't get posted, so you're gonna have to settle with this... Idk if it's youtubes auto-mod or if it's his but whatever it is (or however this site works), it didn't let me.
Sure buddy
@@nerrler5574 It literally is, but what do I expect from fascists.
@@jonoxes8662 ok, explain how it's "holocaust denial"
If mentioning the colonial nature of Polish rule in the Kresy, I think you should have mentioned the Osadniks. Which were Polish settler colonists who were given land inhabited by non-Poles to Polish veterans and their families
Sounds like Israel today lmao
It’s a shame that the fate of the Kresy region is taught in such a way in Poland. They teach you how it was this idyllic, rural place, with Ukrainians and Belarussians living in the wooden huts, while Poles lived in the cities and were acting as a „civilizing” factor. People have no shame in commenting how „without the war, the population would be fully integrated/Polonized and Volhynia wouldn’t have happened, lmao”.
Some idiots are still crying for Polish Lviv and Vilnius. As a Pole hailing from the pre-war German parts of the country, I fail to see any benefit of aquiring the region in the first place…
sounds familiar
@@Vitalis94My man you are boxing shadows. Never heard the take as yours. When it comes to places like Vilnus and Lvov they had very significant place in Polish-Lithunian culture.
@@cesenu19 No one says they doesn’t? I only spoke of modern day irredentism, which is stupid?
Sorry but this video suggests that Stalin was a nice guy
How dare Hakim assume that, right? Bad Stalin bad, booo Stalin booo!
@@AlexSmith-iy3gn exactly
@@NoSoulNoToll pretty sure he was mocking you. and that aside no bad guy wouldve done so much to try and prevent the second world war
@@oscarbjb7938 yeah and creating a slavery system
@@NoSoulNoToll Slavery system? What are you referring to
Can you talk about weather it's true or not america sent aid to soviets .
He can't because it's true
They did about 180 billion worth
It's true
You can try to rewrite history but there was, in fact, a pact lol.
It was good that Soviets signed it)
Low iq comment of someone who didnt understand the video
And completely absolve your own country's similar actions on the matter. No wonder the West today is going under. And good riddance!
Have you considered asking a Pole this?
Commies never gave a shit about the relevant people or minorities especially if they don't align with their agenda case in point Jews, Ukrainians and Poles.
Why would he lmao, nobody cares what they think
@@SHVRWKah yes, oppressed minorities, poles and ukrainians
@@eeeertoo2597 Case in point.
yes
Another proletarian classic. Thanks, Hakim!
propaganda*
it takes about 2 seconds to research and instantly know this video is bs
I don't think Soviets and Nazis were the same. Still, this recollection of events is very biased, the Soviet invasion of Poland was also characterized by the mass killing and removal of undesirables, in this case based on their role in government. Look up the Katyn massacre.
For him the massacre probably didnt happen, sering how apologetic he is towards the soviets
hell yeah im early to a hakim video
"Between January 1940 and date of the German invasion, the USSR exported goods of a total estimated value of 597.9 million Reichsmarks to Germany. German deliveries amounted to 437.1 million Reichsmarks.[1]: 367-369 The agreements continued German-Soviet economic relations and resulted in the delivery of large amounts of raw materials to Germany, including over 820,000 metric tons (900,000 short tons; 810,000 long tons) of oil, 1,500,000 metric tons (1,700,000 short tons; 1,500,000 long tons) of grain and 130,000 metric tons (140,000 short tons; 130,000 long tons) of manganese ore."
Damn, they TRADED with the Germans, this is basically an alliance, they basically invaded France together, lets ignore the two entire countries the British gave away to the Germans
hmmm, wonder what all that was used for
@@eeeertoo2597Whataboutisms won’t save your favorite historical dictator from the fact he signed commercial agreements to send important war materials to a fascist state while it was busy conquering Europe.
While Germany gave them mechanisms and PATENTS. That continued to serve USSR even after all the grain and oil were eaten and burnt. The trade wasn't in German favor (they still accepted because of need).
@@Слышьты-ф4ю any other excuses you'd like to make for soviet support of the german war machine?
You're not implying that Stalin DIDN'T eat Polish babies are you!?
How do you think he kept that mustache so luxurious? Babies
He massacred huge numbers of Poles.
This is no different than “6 gorillion” memes. Stalin deported hundreds of thousands of Polish people.
Thought eroguro came from Japan?
No he just order killing of 22 k people in one go, sending 100 k to Sybir camps, laber exploitation, , red army rape violence, Dismantiling polish instutuions killing of inteligencia and mass men made femen
Document in the video: "Poland will be split along the Vistula" Hakim: "They never agreed to partition poland" ????
This guy is so delusional he literally shows quotes disproving what he says to justify what he’s saying. And some people are dumb enough to believe it
@@kye4216israel supporter is spewing nazi propaganda against the USSR, somehow im not surprised
Watch the video lmao
@@eeeertoo2597 Explain how it's nazi propaganda when the nazis and soviets literally signed a treaty. holy fuck you people are so brainwashed its insane
W video
It's crazy how Putin uses the same reasoning for invading Ukraine today
Second video of yours that I watch. You seriously have no idea what you’re talking about. Cheers.
In addition to previously mentioned (dishonest) omission, you try to argue that the MR treaty doesn't carve up Poland when article II does this, and actually gives space for no independent state of Poland.
I'm sorry Hakim, this goes beyond "giving the other side". You're actively misleading your audience, and im VERY disappointed. You can't keep claiming ignorance every time it's inconvenient. I KNOW you know this.
Lorano Pact is a alliance between west powers and germany empire against USSR "It also stated that Germany would never go to war with the other countries. Locarno divided borders in Europe into two categories: western, which were guaranteed by the Locarno Treaties, and eastern borders of Germany with Poland, which were open for revision."
I enjoy the fact that hakim is a bona fide Marxist but has advertisements in his videos lol
As much as I hate this video, he somehow has to make a living. Sure, it would be ideal to be finances only by patreon and donations, but if that is not possible, I think it's okay that he has sponsors.
Besides, they obviously don't impact the video quality
everyone knows marxists can only live off of air energy just like taoists! this should be obvious, from paris commune to soviet revolution all the communists lived off was meditation
Insane take.
The Germans invaded a day after the non-aggression pact was signed. Britain and France had invaded USSR during the civil war to defeat the Communists. Why should the Soviets not push the Germans to the West first? They had already tried to ally with France and Britain too. Poland was also doing imperial expansion. Let's not talk about Britain and France colonialism. Most of these lands belonged to Russian Empire before the WW1 anyway.
Why not spread the Revolution of the Workers to the entire world? That was the aim and it was good. Too bad it failed in the end. Enjoy your Capitalist Dystopia where the vast majority of people are oppressed. The poor people welcomed the Soviets. It was the rich and the bourgeois that were against them from the start. The Communists could not let those vipers stay in power. The whole point was Class Struggle.
Brainrot take. The USSR left the negotiations with France & Britain, which was in fact a betrayal of France who they had been military allies with since 1934. The colonialism of France & Britain is irrelevant here, as you're talking about an alliance with the Nazis who wanted to take over the entirety of Europe and aid other imperialist regimes which wanted to dominate the globe as well. Nor does it matter if "most of the lands" belonged to the Russian empire which the USSR wanted to invade. I thought imperialism was bad when it came to Britain & France, but suddenly you're using it as a historical justification for the USSR's expansionism. I wish that wasn't as funny as it was.
Also, you could've looked it up literally anywhere, but the non-aggression pact was signed almost two whole years before Germany invaded, not "one day." What an incredibly silly thing to say. I'm sure that the workers realllly liked the USSR, that must be why practically every communist country started liberalization reforms between the 70s and 80s. Go off though queen, I'm sure its part of the "necessity of history" and "Marxian analysis" that mom-&-pop shops have to be confiscated by the state. Those family-owned restaurants are just so oppressive... or something.
Anyways here's some excerpts from the Soviets & others that could help you learn actual history instead of this garbage that Tankies feed you:
"One may accept or reject the ideology of Hitlerism as well as any other ideological system, that is a matter of political views. But everybody should understand that an ideology cannot be destroyed by force, that it cannot be eliminated by war. It is, therefore, not only senseless but criminal to wage such a war as a war for the ‘destruction of Hitlerism’ camouflaged as a fight for ‘democracy’."
- VM Molotov, Speech Delivered on 31 October 1939 (USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs)
"Whoever calls against Jewish capital, gentlemen, is already a class fighter, even if he doesn't know it. They are against Jewish capital and want to fight down the stock market jobbers. Rightly so. Trample down the Jewish capitalists, hang them on the lantern, trample them. But gentlemen, what do you think of the big capitalists, the Stinnes, Klöckner ...?"
- Ruth Fischer, Chairwoman of the Communist Party of Germany, 1923
“Ribbentrop confessed as much to Mussolini on 10 March 1940:
“In confidence, the Reich Foreign Minister can announce that Russia is being VERY GENEROUS in supplying raw materials and is using some of her own gold to buy raw materials which Germany needs.””
- Ciano’s Diplomatic Papers (London, 1948), p 347
Be honest about the record of the Stalinists. Stalin failed to oppose Hitler taking power, suppressed the Polish Communist Party, let Ethiopia fall to Mussolini, whose airplanes flew with Russian oil and whose soldiers fed on Russian wheat, and failed to improve conditions of the war against Franco. Everything about Stalin was a failure.
And let's not forget why the Soviets were so keen to work with the Nazis:
"Of the 50 intellectuals publicly attacked during the last two months, 49 are Jewish!" (April 11, 1949)
- Yiddishe Kempfer, March 17-18, 1949
@@Albtraum_TDDC 1. No, Germans invaded 2 years after it was signed. 2. The USSR was the one which left the negotiations with France & England, one of which it had a military alliance going back to 1934 which it broke just so it could ally with the Nazis. 3. I like how imperialism is bad when France & Britain do it, but it suddenly becomes a justification for USSR expansionism. "Bro they were just taking back old imperial lands!!!" 4. I forgot mom-&-pop shops and family-owned businesses are actually oppressing our poor working class, how sad! Truly dystopic. Thank you, USSR, for having the state run everything. Real workers in control!
Anyways, please take a moment to read a first-hand report from within the USSR. Read verrry slowly:
“... all the agreements reached between Germany and the USSR during the last three months - the non-aggression pact, the boundary and friendship treaty, and lastly the economic agreement - have established a solid and lasting basis for the development of cordial economic and political relations between the two states. They fully correspond to the basic interests of the German and Soviet peoples, to the interests of peace, and to the interests of the popular masses in every country.”
- Pravda, (Soviet Paper) 18 February 1940.
You can't justify war crimes as mistakes, what's done was done and you can't say it was just an accident on the soviet side.
You're blatantly lying here. There WAS a military pact. The documents are available to anyone who can check the primary sources. FFS...
Source
Sources
source: trust me borther. Military alliance means that in case of war allys fight on the same side. I willing to bt any money that neither germans fought on side of ussr during winter war, neither ussr fought on side of Germany during their invasion of France. SO STFU.
Conveniently leaving out the "let's split up Poland because we both want a piece of it in our empires" bit
Stalin was just taking rightful Soviet land back, the part of Poland he invaded was land Poland stole from a Polish invasion of the early USSR.
@@PAC-0922 Polish people don’t have a right to Poland but Russian empire does? Weird argument. Imperialistic argument
@@PAC-0922And Russia had invaded Poland previously and taken that land. Either way, the real crime is that the Soviet Union collaborated with the Nazis to divide Eastern Europe and that the Soviets committed atrocities against the Poles in the region they annexed.
@@chewchewtrain You Pollocks are not so innocent yourselves, since y'all have had your own imperialist ambitions. We'll not stupid, unlike you.
The mental gymnastics in this video are impressive, the fact is the USSR invaded Poland after Germany did, not to defend Poland, but to join Germany.
U wanted full German Poland? BTW, that territory was Belarus and Ukraine anyway.
@@Слышьты-ф4ю Do you think that the USSR signing a non aggression pact with Germany and talking about splitting Poland between the two made Germany's invasion more likely or less likely? did the USSR deterred or enabled Germany's invasion?
The Poland situation was a truce between Germany and the USSR, Hitler always planned to stab the USSR in the back once Poland was captured.
@@eeeertoo2597 No one is saying that the allies were perfect, they were in denial trying to avoid war at all cost with their policy of appeasement towards Germany and that was a mistake, but they did declare war to Germany after the invasion of Poland, the USSR did the opposite of that and that’s far worse imo.
@@eeeertoo2597 It's not 100% the allies' fault, that is insane, you're taking away not just the obvious responsibility of the USSR by ENABLING the German invasion of Poland, but you're also ignoring the responsibility of the Germans themselves lol, ridiculous. Bye.
Could you explain the german soviet axis talks
Citing a Soviet official in 1943 about their actions in 1939 is a hilariously bad source.
soviet offical? the guy was the united states' ambassador to the USSR, he was an american official
Yeah, Joseph Davies definitely sounds like a Soviet name
@@anaxosaI thought we can’t trust the evil capitalist west?
@@TutuBoy-835we can't trust entire governments, but we can trust people.
Also why would someone so openly defend the USSR if they were capitalist?
@@TheFBI911 Because they were allied with the USSR at the time and as such talking nice about the USSR makes sense? Look at FDR’s positive statements towards Stalin as a direct example of this (uncle Joe). Especially in 1943 since discussions about what to do after the war were starting and as such it made sense to not talk bad about the USSR. Especially considering the fact the USSR was doing the heavy lifting against Germany. What official would be dumb enough to jeopardize that?
As the dude said, hilariously bad source
Honestly, I think the article ii he shows that lays out the bounds of the 'spheres of influence' within Poland which the red army stayed almost precisely within upon invasion is pretty damning evidence towards an agreement to partition of the country. Also he should have at least mentioned the Katyn massacre as more than a 'mistake'.
yeah but stalin did all he could to prevent the war and when that failed he decided to do what he could and A: be the better side to live on and B: make sure to delay a nazi invasion for as long as possible and make industrialisation as fast as possible. thus meaning when the nazis do invade the USSR could minimize the damage that the nazis would do. part of delaying war could include not intruding on an agreed border
@@oscarbjb7938 I do think it was a pragmatic move to avoid hostilities, but I believe there is quite substantial evidence that Stalin did not anticipate an attack from the Germans, such as dismissing military intelligence suggesting that the Germans were preparing an invasion as 'alarmism' right up to the eve of Barbarossa. I view the agreement as a land grab at best to strengthen socialism in one country. Additionally, while Soviet actions pale in comparison to German brutality, there were substantial efforts by the Soviets to decapitate any indigenous Polish political movements, such as the Katyn massacre, where over 20,000 Polish school teachers, professors, priests, and officers were marched into western Russia and executed, notably in the Katyn Forest, where mass graves of thousands of victims were discovered in mass graves. So although the Soviets were less barbaric than the Germans, they still committed atrocious acts which I think Hakim does not adequately address.
@@oscarbjb7938 I do believe that the agreement was a pragmatic move to avoid hostilities, but disagree that Stalin anticipated an attack by the Germans. This is, in my view, evidenced by Stalin dismissing military intelligence suggesting an imminent German invasion as 'alarmism' right up to the eve of Barbarossa, leading to the country's woeful lack of preparedness for the attack. Additionally, in 1940, serious talks were held between the Soviets and Germans for the admission of the Soviet Union as a fourth axis power, and draft treaties were exchanged dividing the world into spheres of influence, though the Germans eventually declined a proposal drafted personally by Stalin over disputes regarding Finland and the Balkans. So I strongly disagree Stalin was working towards an inevitable conflict with Germany, considering his trust that the Germans would not violate the non-aggression agreement, was willing to enter into outright alliance with the Germans, and to export vast quantities of minerals to fuel the German war machine. Additionally, while the brutality of Soviet actions in Poland pale in comparison to those of Germany, the Soviets still made deliberate efforts to decapitate any indigenous Polish political movements. One of these being the Katyn massacre, wherein over 20,000 Polish school teachers, professors, priests, and officers were deported into western Russia, where they were then executed, most notably at Katyn Forest, where the mass graves of thousands of victims were discovered. So although the Soviets were less barbaric in their occupation, they still committed atrocious acts I feel Hakim did not adequately address.
Yes, katyn massacre is a horrible crime committed by German nazi regime, and it is a soviet mistake for not evacuating polish POW or placing them further from the border to begin with (though evacuation would have been almost impossible if you take in to consideration the start of the war chaos and all of the rail lines being clogged by factories evacuating east and mobilized going west. Also i really struggle to understand how this mistake justifies the German brutality.
"On April 13, 1990, the Russian TASS agency unexpectedly broadcast a very important announcement about the Katyn massacre. It admitted that the NKVD was responsible for the murders. Two years later, Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Federation, apologized to the Poles for the Soviet (Russian) crime in Katyn." - And in your version, somehow the Germans in 1940 could have found themselves over 700 km away from the areas they controlled and shot thousands of Poles who were in Soviet captivity. So there are two options: A - magic or B - Russian/Soviet propaganda.
Stalin wrote a letter congratulating Hitler on his takeover of France, invaded Poland from the East in unison with the Nazis, the USSR and Nazis literally had celebrations/military parade over the victory and Stalin even considered joining the axis at one point.
“German-Soviet Axis talks occurred in October and November 1940 concerning the Soviet Union's potential adherent as a fourth Axis power during World War II. The negotiations, which occurred during the era of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, included a two-day conference in Berlin between Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Adolf Hitler and German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The talks were followed by both countries trading written proposed agreements.
After two days of negotiations from 12 to 14 November 1940, Germany presented the Soviets with a draft written Axis pact agreement that defined the world spheres of influence of the four proposed Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union).[1] Hitler, Ribbentrop and Molotov tried to set German and Soviet spheres of influence. Hitler encouraged Molotov to look south to Iran and eventually India, to preserve German access to Finland's resources and to remove Soviet influence in the Balkans.[2]
Molotov remained firm and sought to remove German troops from Finland and gain a warm water port in the Baltic. Soviet foreign policy calculations were predicated on the idea that the war would be a long-term struggle and so German claims that the United Kingdom would be defeated swiftly were treated with skepticism.[3] In addition, Stalin sought to remain influential in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Those factors resulted in Molotov taking a firm line.[2]
According to a study by Alexander Nekrich, on 25 November 1940, the Soviets presented a Stalin-drafted written counterproposal accepting the four power pact but including Soviet rights to Bulgaria and a world sphere of influence, to be centred on the area around Iraq and Iran.[4] Germany did not respond[5][6] and left the negotiations unresolved.
Regarding the counterproposal, Hitler remarked to his top military chiefs that Stalin "demands more and more", "he's a cold-blooded blackmailer" and "a German victory has become unbearable for Russia" so that "she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible."[7] Germany ended the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in June 1941 by invading the Soviet Union.
In the following years, the Soviet Information Bureau published a book titled Falsifiers of History, largely edited by Stalin himself, in which the Soviet premier claimed that he was simply testing his enemy. This became the official version of events that persisted in Soviet historiography up until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. According to Soviet diplomat Victor Israelyan, the book "certainly did nothing to disprove the existence of Soviet-German cooperation in the first years of World War II, a cooperation that to a certain degree assisted Hitler's plan".
There’s soo much more to bring up. Stop denying history. You’re no different than a Southern States apologist, an Armenian Genocide denier or a Holocaust denier. Ironic since you people parade the use of the term Nazi as an insult and make “states rights to do what?” Memes, when you yourself engage in behaviour no different than the people you criticise.
keep coping
Man, if only Marxists knew how to read😢
Letter: Diplomacy 101 - don't be a dick.
And no, Stalin never considered joining the Axis. In said negotiations the soviets made maximalist demnds and did not budge a iota.
You do not know what you're talking about and just shit on the desk.
I know someone who would have a heart attack if they saw this video
"The soviets never agreed to partition poland."
The soviets partitioned poland with germany.
You would rather the nazis took all of Poland? The Nazis literally enslaved Polish people as well as killing millions of polish jews. Poland under USSR control was undoubtedly the better place to be.
I'm sure that there's more to history than any one source but what about the Soviet massacre of the Polish intelligentsia in the Katyn Forest? Orwell wisely disliked both & for good reason ( not to mention his experience with the Soviets in the Spanish Civil War).
Like Hakim said, there is nuanced in the conversation. However, I find it very funny you bring up Orwell considering Both Hakim and the community he fosters hated him
“Orwell wisely…” my eyes are bleeding
The last time I researched Katyn was many years ago and new reports have come out since which I didn't have time to properly research, hence why I didn't talk about it extensively in this video.
@@YaBoiHakim and what’s your current position about it comrade? By the USSR? Germany? Or not clear enough?
A video idea could be about appeasment policy, since some historians seem to think that Czechoslovakia should have fought back against the nazis (like Poland did) instead of surrendering. That they should have at least put up a symbolic fight.
Bro lies more than aljazeera lmfao
10:27
"-and only 1 day after the Supreme Soviet approved it."
Supreme Soviet approval of the invasion? Can't find that at all. If it's something else he's talking about approving please link it or just link the source about the Supreme Soviet approving the invasion of Poland.