Good, then we both agree the source doesn’t support the “hundreds of thousands murdered in Poland” claim.

Lol, if you want to try and move the goalposts from my “murdered Poles” to your “in Poland”, I can only say that’s just childish. Do you think it’s better if they died in Russia?

No, I really cannot pretend knowing more about defeating fascism in Europe that the nation which ultimately defeated fascism, at the IMMENSE cost of 25 million lives in the struggle against Nazism.

Hexbear incoming. “They helped defeat the nazis so the bottom line is we can’t criticize them”.

Imagine how we would look at the US if they had decided it was more profitable to just team up with the nazis instead

That’s a book on migrations and deportations, not a book on casualties, it doesn’t seem to support a claim of “hundreds of thousands murdered” which you made in your previous comment, could you please elaborate?

Again, you’re conflating murdered with deported

It most certainly includes direct casualty numbers as well, for Poland and many other conflicts.

Great, please name one of them that doesn’t imply complete occupation of Poland by Nazis

I just can’t envision an alternative reality

Well, I think that’s the main issue here. Siding with the nazis, attacking Poland in the rear when they were fighting the nazis, committing horrible crimes against the Polish population and POWs … You really, really cannot imagine not having to do even one of those

Well I’m not sure if that’s from the book you suggested, but if it is I must say the language is a tad bit romanticized lol. Might I suggest better sources

I don’t know if the other three chapters you suggested get any better but in your quote it only argues that collaborating with the nazis was “their only option” if you first agree to start from the premise that they *checks notes* “just had to claim those territories” to which they “had a far better right”

Imagine if the UK or the US had allied with the nazis and attacked Western Europe in the back, out of fear and begging them for spoils… (as some politicians argued, I might add)?

I get that the book you want me to read claims, like the previous poster, that the only option Russia had was to secretly team up with the nazis and attack the Poles from the rear

But my question is not so much to repeat that but to support it with arguments

Could you paraphrase the parts of the book that would be relevant?

please tell me what was the alternative to Soviet occupation in Eastern Poland, once Poland rejected a mutual defense agreement against Nazis with the Soviets

There were several alternatives, actually. But most of them would start with Russia not attacking them in the rear after they moved their troops west to fight off the nazis

can you provide a source for that? I know about the Katyn massacre and about other events in which Nazi collaborators/Bourgeois Polish nationalists were killed (as well as some innocent civilians), but AFAIK the numbers don’t go that high

Yeah sure, here’s one that estimates between 250k and 1.5m (but which I believe also includes post-war)

But I presume that if you’re the type that already convinced themselves that all these murdered Poles “must have deserved it” in one way or another, then that number probably couldn’t be high enough anyway

Not to defend the flawed comparison with Trump’s treason, but that’s a very useless take on the M-R pact…

Stalin could have

• not promised the nazis to attack the Poles from the rear
• not attacked the Poles from the rear
• not murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles after high-fiving the nazis after having succesfully attacked the Poles from the rear

I think all of these alternatives would have been more desirable than, well, actively teaming up with the nazis

edit: list layout

Any source? Last I heard Alphabet was making mad bank

Funny thing: they did so in exchange for other countries recognizing their annexation of the Western Sahara. Their own little Palestine

Yeah it’llbe interesting to find out who these lawmakers are that need more than money

Does it change anything if the stereotype is correct

my family’s political group chat

Jeezes man get yourself together

If you have access to the internets, you are free to learn

On your other points: yeah colonisation bad immigration bad human history bad I get ya

Also they call themselves garbagebagel on the fediverse

Which pretext did those Italians have to, as you call it, “steal land in Argentina”?

They chose it both for religious and for practical reasons. They also considered Argentine, for example.

The muslims also claimed the land should, historically, belong to muslims, so there’s that.

Which region would you have suggested the jews of the Ottoman empire to congregate?

Sure it was.

If there was no foothold of Ottoman jews in Palestine, they would not have chosen to congregate there.

If the Ottoman jews had not already started congregating in this area, (future) zionists in the rest of the world would never have thought about it.

The fact the territories of the crumbling Ottoman empire were more likely to gain future Independence were another important driver, of course. Something European, Russian and American jews could never achieve within their respective countries

Well, I’m sure not all of them are. And you’ll be happy to learn that the ethnic populations are getting more and more mixed every year

Well, if we start from the ‘living in relative peace’ part during during the latter century of the Ottoman empire, one can get quite a clear picture on how we arrived here today. It takes around 3 minutes.

During the Ottoman empire, jews were a small and dispersed minority living under laws that were, in large, inspired on islamic sharia. Although there were regions and periods of time where this was less enforced, it still meant that they would always be second class citizens, or worse. For example: they weren’t allowed to build or repair synagogues, could not carry guns or ride horses, had to pay a special tax, etc…

So they were living in relative peace as long as they put up with the systemic discrimination (and the occasional local sectarian massacre but hey, it was the 19th century after all).

So we jump forward to the 1850-1870’s and reforms are ongoing to modernize the empire and this came with a lot of the systemic discrimination being removed, moving towards a more secular state with the different religious communities given self-government wrt religious laws. Finally light at the end of the tunnel for the Ottoman jews, right? Well, sucked to be them as in 1876 Turkish nationalists seized power, abolished parliament and installed a new sultan which was a pan-Islamist and sought to re-consolidate the people of his empire under islam. (Btw, the Turkish nationalists would later go on to purge their land by doing multiple genocides, some still ongoing).

So this is where zionism picks up, with Ottoman jews seeing the future darken and the idea growing that they should unite in one place. This led to a lot of jewish immigrants moving into (modern day) Palestine starting around 1880 towards this goal, with the zionist idea picking up around the world, gaining more and more steam and here we are, 2024 and jews and muslims are still fighting over it.