Cowbee

Can second IronFox, it's my daily.

No, you directly suggested a false binary, that if I disagreed with you, I was either speaking ESL or was uneducated, when the truth is that I'm a native english speaker and have done a great deal of studying on the history of socialism and socialist theory. I understand what profit means, you stated that the USSR was profiting off of the Nazis during the war as equivalent to me stating that the US profited off of the Nazis during wartime. My use of the word profit was direct, and oriented towards the capitalist nature of the US's involvement in the Nazi economy, I did not mean a general, vague notion of "benefit."

As for what the Soviets did, they did try, for an entire decade, to get the west to agree to an anti-Nazi pact. They offered hundreds of thousands of troops, and materiel like bombers, tanks, etc. They were rejected. The west wanted the soviets and Nazis to wipe each other out entirely, only engaging when they saw the real threat of the Nazis. The Nazis genuinely believed Britain would join them, and they were close to correct, Churchill was a genocidal monster and a vehemont racist.

So the evidence corroborating Goebbels supports the 1940 idea, despite Nazi ammunition dating 1941 was found, along with German rope, Nazi execution modus operandi, eyewitness reports corroborating that it was the Nazis that did it, and there's tons of discrepancies from the anti-communist Yeltsin-regime released documents. Sounds like more proof that the Nazis did it. All this is is you taking a declarative stance that you trust the Nazis and the Red Scare-era west against modern historical investigation.

As for the soviets, they tended towards 2 directions: 1, national sovereignty and self-determination, as well as 2, support for socialist movements. They weren't imperialist like the US is, so they didn't stand to gain from the same economic compulsions that drive the US to plunder the global south.

When I said the USSR was not a "profit-driven economy," I meant it was socialist. When I said the US was profiting, I meant directly, through the standard English usage of profit as business related profits. Your only counter is to assert that I'm either uneducated or speaking English as a second language, but neither of those if true should bar me from conversation anyways. It's quite literally ad hominem.

The Soviet Union signed the non-agression pact to buy time for them to further close the gap and increase the chances of beating the Nazis. Time was on the soviet side. Nazi Germany was increasingly in need of new colonies, the soviets needed more industrialization. I concede mistakes made by the Soviet Union, the fact that I don't concede the non-aggression pact as one doesn't mean I don't accept any. I don't think you have any evidence to support your claims, here.

What should the Soviets have done instead?

You too!

In order for the Soviets to have been guilty, it would have had to happen around 1939-1940. 1940 is the date Goebbels reported, and is accepted by those pinning it on the Soviets, because that would be when the Soviets most plausibly could have done it. Further, again, the Soviet weaponry did not fire German ammunition. The evidence in favor of the Nazis committing the Katyn Massacre are staggering, and the evidence provided by the anti-communist Yeltsin regime are flimsy at best.

Either way, putting it all aside, the Soviets did kill Polish soldiers that resisted them and/or cooperated with the Nazis, Slovak Republic, and OUN. They did not slaughter civilians like the Nazis did, certainly not children. There's absolutely fault to be found in excess, but if we just accept Geobbels' word for everything then that excess becomes parody and we remove ourselves from genuine analysis.

That's fair, and as you point out the reaction against the socialist system is being used more for political gain by the Polish ruling class. There are other Polish users on this site, so I won't pretend to be an expert on the PRL, but I do think you can seek out their perspectives as well if you'd like, though I'm sure you have other ways to do so given that you're Polish yourself.

This is extremely silly. Profit in economics terms, as in production for profit. The USSR did not profit either in the economic term for it, nor in your generalized terms. Throwing ESL speakers under the bus and insulting me over a semantical argument when it was clear that I am saying the Soviet Union was socialist and thus its trades were not for profits is silly.

Secondly, it would have been great if the USSR could have traded with the west for what it needed, but the west denied them. The Soviet Union got what it needed, which contributed towards their victory over the Nazis.

No, it didn't. Nazi Germany collapsed, and the USSR did not invade Europe. You're trying to argue that it was a Soviet ploy to invade Europe.

No, it didn't. Nazi Germany collapsed, and the USSR did not invade Europe. You're trying to argue that it was a Soviet ploy to invade Europe.

Well, I am a communist, so I tend to weigh communist perspectives more heavily. It's important to recognize that much of the opposition to the socialist system came from nationalists and far-right groups, which caused civil strife.

They didn't, though. They went to war to stop the Nazis, the only time it came into use was when the Nazis invaded Poland and the soviets prevented them from taking all of Poland.

Also, there's no need to reply on both threads.