Or are you talking about the fact that the West's idea of a united front was they commit nothing and expect Russia to commit everything? Instead of simply honoring their own treaty obligations with the Czechs?
Or are you talking about the fact that the West's idea of a united front was they commit nothing and expect Russia to commit everything? Instead of simply honoring their own treaty obligations with the Czechs?
Even if I accept your belief on timing, that does not contradict that a) the soviets were existentially threatened by the nazis, and b) were backed into a corner by the refusal of the allies to form a united front
Even if I accept your belief on timing, that does not contradict that a) the soviets were existentially threatened by the nazis, and b) were backed into a corner by the refusal of the allies to form a united front
The soviet oppressive actions are not relevant to whether or not the strategic situation the soviets were in explains their pact actions.
The soviet oppressive actions are not relevant to whether or not the strategic situation the soviets were in explains their pact actions.
And none of this comes close to proving the M-R was an alliance; nor does it counter the fact the M-R was a response to the West's rebuff or a united front.
And none of this comes close to proving the M-R was an alliance; nor does it counter the fact the M-R was a response to the West's rebuff or a united front.
And plenty of aligned "independent" media organs
It has official state run media organs too, as do all functioning states, your statement is just laughable.
And plenty of aligned "independent" media organs
It has official state run media organs too, as do all functioning states, your statement is just laughable.
You are the only one that has claimed that any of the actors had "moral superiority", remember?
You are the only one that has claimed that any of the actors had "moral superiority", remember?
I grow tired of this. You are determined to ignore context at all times and regularly contradict yourself. You are too history what apologetics is to religion.
I grow tired of this. You are determined to ignore context at all times and regularly contradict yourself. You are too history what apologetics is to religion.
That is like the Mayor of a town in Alabama calling for the destruction of Russia.
US Senators regularly call for similar actions publicly, and they have much more access to levers of power
That is like the Mayor of a town in Alabama calling for the destruction of Russia.
US Senators regularly call for similar actions publicly, and they have much more access to levers of power
As did Japan
Those were who I was referring to, the two countries in an explicitly anti-soviet alliance, that were existential threats to them
As did Japan
Those were who I was referring to, the two countries in an explicitly anti-soviet alliance, that were existential threats to them
Why does Russia have such a big nuclear arsenal?
Why does China have nuclear weapons?
Could there be historical concerns China has with Japan?
Why does NK have nukes?
Especially consider the context of Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently Iran
Why does Russia have such a big nuclear arsenal?
Why does China have nuclear weapons?
Could there be historical concerns China has with Japan?
Why does NK have nukes?
Especially consider the context of Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently Iran
The difference is the West had agency and a positive choice. They went against it. The soviets sought a positive choice and were rejected. Yet you claim the west is morally superior.
The difference is the West had agency and a positive choice. They went against it. The soviets sought a positive choice and were rejected. Yet you claim the west is morally superior.
But for this specific instance power is important. The US is a globe spanning unipower, albeit in decline, Russia is a post collapse regional power. One of these two has greater agency than the other can you guess which?
But for this specific instance power is important. The US is a globe spanning unipower, albeit in decline, Russia is a post collapse regional power. One of these two has greater agency than the other can you guess which?
Finland assumed as the Germans did that the soviets would collapse, hence focussing on high value targets like St Petersburg
Finland assumed as the Germans did that the soviets would collapse, hence focussing on high value targets like St Petersburg
I am arguing that you need to look at things in context. Something you seem constitutionally incapable of.
I am arguing that you need to look at things in context. Something you seem constitutionally incapable of.
Just because Finland failed to achieve Greater Finland, it does not mean they did not have ambitions for it.
Just because Finland failed to achieve Greater Finland, it does not mean they did not have ambitions for it.