Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I’d like to think it’s simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.
Is it simply over-correcting in response to western anti-communist propaganda? I’d like to think it’s simply memeing for memes sake, but it feels too genuine.
It doesn’t, and it shouldn’t be taken as such. It’s just historicity.
Pretty much between 1914 and 1946/53 you have an impenetrable web of colonial empires colliding and crashing apart. There is very little purity to be found, so accuracy is about all you can rely on. Not knowing about Litvinov, (or Pilsudski, or the Phoney War, or whatever) is fine and normal.
Like, there are often counter/fingerpointing on this subject about Churchill being a pile of shit (and sure, super racist) but in this specific context we’re still in the Chamberlain era. Pointing that out is neither support for Chamberlain nor a judgement on Churchill.
And there’s plenty about Stalin-era USSR to complain about. Lysenkoism or Beria, for instance. It’s such a deeply complex subject that accuracy tends to be the most damning evidence.
This is the shit that gets to me. Like half this thread is people talking about silly people wanting to divide history into goodies and baddies while doing exactly that.
History just is, the good and bad we must analyse with clear eyes if we are to learn from both the triumphs and failures so we can build a free world.
The USSR did wonderful things, terrible things, and banal things. On the whole it vastly improved the lives of people in it, and even outside of it the threat of revolution was used to advance worker’s rights massively. Acknowledging this is not excusing or justifying the failures, explaining why the failures occured is not excusing them. To learn we must understand the whys and the hows so we can replicate triumphs and avoid tragedy.
The whole point it to do better. I don’t understand why people don’t see that.