Hakim's Ridiculous Defence Of The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Patreon: / lonerbox
Twitter: / boxloner
Twitch: / lonerbox​
Discord: / discord
Reddit: / lonerbox
Obsidian notes: publish.obsidian.md/lonerbox
Become a Member: / @lonerboxlive
Donate Directly to Loner: paypal.me/lonerbox
#destiny #vaush #politicaldebates

[@crow-dont-know]

Peak Stalin: having a guy shot on the spot because you suspect he's delivering misinformation, despite the fact that waiting approximately 24 hours would confirm or disprove said misinformation.

[@James-9999]

“I’m going to prove horseshoe theory wrong by justifying 1930s German economic deals from a leftist point of view”🗿

[@kinhoo18]

At which point in the video does he justify German Economic deals bruv what? He is Ellaborating on the Nuance of the Soviet Psyche regarding their relations with Germany, at no point does he say anything good about Nazi Germany wtf 💀

[@mogscugg2639]

I mean hakim doesnt like hebrews but he doesn't have the spine to say it to our faces

[@ReySchultz121]

​@@mogscugg2639 I heard he was Iraqi? Which might make sense but i won't say "certain stigmas".

[@ChaseJames-mn7lf]

Just a reminder: Hakim defended October 7th, and denied the Anfal genocide. He (along with other tankie creators like Second Thought and Badempanada) are truly evil.

[@Joseph-mh9xd]

Yet here you are giving him money by watching his video your a clown

[@MegaAnimeforlife]

Badempanada said that all us veterans regardless of whether they committed war crimes or not should kill themselves god he makes my blood boil

[@allynashton6077]

Don't forget his ad hominum video on Orwell or Badempanada's chomskiesque downplaying of China's treatment of the Uyghur people

[@danieltobin4498]

Didn’t he also support the Saddam’s genocide against the Kurds?

[@nicktrujillo4963]

@@danieltobin4498 Yeah, that's what the Anfal genocide refers to.

[@aenz1268]

As a Pole, seeing all this weird Soviet apologia is always so weird. The Katyń Massacre is literally so indefensible that Hakim didn't even mention it, except to vaguely allude to "mistakes" made and "landlords" being killed. Stalin killed the Polish officers and intelligentsia so that it would be easier to subjugate Poland. That much is obvious. There are literally documents signed by Stalin and the Politburo approving these killings. As far as I'm concerned there is just no way to justify it, unless you think that building a Soviet Empire in Europe was a noble aim and it is worth killing innocent people to accomplish that.

[@yaboye3791]

Als ty nje wisz?! KADYŃ ZRUBILI NIMCY BO ZNALIŹLI DAM ICH NABUJE (nie ważny jest fakt że ruskie zrobili to celowo żeby zakryć swoje ślady i to że zawarli umowę na podstawie której ruscy soldaci dostaną zasoby [w tym bronie] od nazistów w zamian za ćwiczenie ich oficerów)

[@konstantynopolyt6770]

Capitalist propaganda, deep down in our hearts we know what happened

[@Mish844]

never let them divert attention from fact that shatter their worldview

[@polishoperator5687]

Gorbachev ended up admitting that the USSR is guilty and responsible for Katyn as well as documents concerning Katyn got declassified which proved the Soviets and Stalin were behind it and we even got Yeltsin and Medvedev I think? Anyways they apologized to us for Katyn but... With the Ukrainian war going on, Putin's Z Government in Russia now loves to re-write history and either say they deserved it or that it didn't even happen in the first place lol.

[@jackfromthejungle7538]

As a german im already triggered by the title ... wtf

[@Raptor810Blue]

Tankies try not to deny imperialism and war crimes challenge any%

[@Raptor810Blue]

@@Solaris_Paradox Happy 14th 🎉🥳

[@imlivingunderyourbed7845]

If you call it "liberating oppressed workers", then it's not imperialism.

[@imacds]

Speedrun: 0.001 seconds

[@jamesharvey3993]

Common Hakim L

[@ReySchultz121]

The guy just scares me.

[@seneca983]

@@ReySchultz121 He has also e.g. said that North Korea is democratic.

[@Maharlikano_XYZ]

L = legendary.

[@bazooka712]

​@@seneca983 its in the name, are we stupid?

[@theoldhermit2601]

Remember, when we talk about the atrocities of evil regimes in those decades like Germany, Italy and Japan we can (rightfully) condemn their crimes against humanity, but when the USSR does a lot of the same atrocities at the same time frame, all of a sudden its nuanced because idk, they wear Hakim's team colors i guess?

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

If the soviets committed problematic behaviour then that was out of the neccessity of getting pushed into the situation, usually the agressor was on the other side of the situation and whatever was thrown at them they had to deal with. Also, there are no crimes that japan or germany comitted that are anywhere near what the soviets did and it is your burden too proof that it was.

[@intelligent_kiddo9578]

​@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 hakim, is that you dog? Comment from your main, coward😂

[@kinhoo18]

The soviets didn't do “alot of the same attrocities”, that's the whole point of Hakim's nuanced analysis in the first place. It's to refute the irrational conflation so many people apply to the Fascists and the USSR as if they all happened in a vacuum based on the same motivations, the same Crimes, the same Extemism that can be basically interchanged. This is simply a dumb Horseshoe theory argument with no actual analysis that goes deeper than a plate, the Nazis intentionally commited genocide against Millions of Jews because they saw them as inferior, the USSR had the largest Jewish population in the world and they didnt genocide any of them. The Nazis were an aggressive force which was clearly bound to expand against it's neighbours, the USSR was the one actively trying to stop them by proposing to the Allies an alliance against them in 1934, which they rejected and resorted to appeasing them. The Nazis had intentions of Conquering all of Eastern Europe in order to banish all of the Slavic and Jewish people beyond the Urals, the Soviets asserted their own sphere of influence deeper in Eastern Europe, seeing it as preferable over allowing Germany to simply steamroll over *all* of Poland and Lithuania and maintain their influence with Finland right next to Leningrad. This is what Hakim is trying to get you to see, not just handwaving away any criticism of the USSR simply because of an ideological zeal to defend his motherland (Even though he's Iraqi???)

[@mightymachine5372]

@@kinhoo18 Bro, you didn't even watch the video. the USSR committed atrocities. The Nazis committed atrocities. Both are bad. teh problem is the Hakim tries to defend one while calling the other a monster. its hypocritical and sad. murder is murder, and war crimes are war crimes. the only difference between the USSR and Nazis are intent and scale. Hitler killed people because he thought they were lesser, Stalin killed people because of rampant paranoia and shoddy planning.

[@AhAh-ni2cb]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 we don’t need to say the soviets we’re doing the Holocaust. But what exactly pushed Stalin to deport indigenous populations at will?

[@Virginija658]

As east European i do not understand, why, fact, that we consider soviet being bad, means we consider nazi good? In my country BOTH soviet and nazi symbils are forbidden.

[@Thor12233]

Which european country bans both? Am also from eastern europe, non of them are banned here but both are hated. I from georgia btw

[@apgaismiba]

​@Thor12233 Baltic states or Poland.

[@danielk4089]

@@Thor12233pretty sure Ukraine has both banned as well

[@Thor12233]

@@danielk4089 that because of the war, before they didnt

[@Rimmy45]

​@@Thor12233 they banned it in 2015

[@jamesoldham9995]

Hakim's Nazbol arc is in full swing I see.

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

I'm sorry?

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

​@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 Don't even try to simp for Hakim, buddy.

[@jorgeenchilada]

was he ever OUT of a nazbol arc? anyone who supports or at least excuses Russia is a nazbol. Not only that but you have to be pretty solidly stupid to believe in "Marxism-Leninism" which isn't even a real thing.

[@Idkwhyyouresostupid]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 another nazi simp

[@rogirek3362]

I'm sorry? As in, how does one arc to their current position from their current position?

[@samr6408]

14:40 Hakim’s acting like some expert on WWII history and the map of Germany he chose doesn’t even include East Prussia lmao

[@shef7074]

And uses a modern-day Russia map as well for some reason (conviniently excluding the fact they owned much beyond what they do now)

[@EatThisLSDick]

​@@shef7074 It's on purpose

[@zeropac3478]

modern russian borders lol

[@rogirek3362]

Hello, I'm a Nigerian prince. If you already see where this is going, I don't want to waste my time on you. If you're intellectually defenseless enough not to, on the other hand, we can have a "mutually" beneficial relationship! Let me tell you about how all of the Soviet purges were actually the fault of allies bombing supply lines... Wait, which talking point am I on right now?

[@TheJovian16]

That's mostly because whoever Hackim hired to do his editing for him put in as much effort as one would expect making tankie video essays without actually being a tankie. And Hackim himself didn't notice because he didn't care because his job is to hack out tankie thought terminating cliches in video essay form to the choir of tankies he's ultimately preaching to since there's no way the average liberal or social democrat would find this sh!t convincing, especially once they hear his smug, condescending tone of address.

[@jloiben12]

Who believes this? People who already believe the dishonesty Hakim is spewing. If we changed the nouns (ie - made it about Brazil and Argentina, had the territorial grabs be the other South American countries, etc) and asked Hakim if this is an alliance, Hakim would say yes. Obviously. Because Hakim is just doing team sports here. Dude’s pretty much engaging in the same logic of race realists. It is pathetic

[@greycoloris7665]

So, pseudo-leftist elitists?

[@chilleris]

He newer been in Soviet Ocupation, we Lithuanians know about it

[@rockmycd1319]

Sovietboos and apologists. It’s the same people who outright deny the Soviet aspirations to join the axis pact.

[@billywise643]

@@rockmycd1319 I agree, just a minor correction. As far as i know it wasn't an official item of stalin's policy. More of ribbentrop being either overly optimistic or ever so slightly cooked in the head. again, even then the very suggestion of cooperation with the axis is a direct contradiction of all Marxist Leninist, socialist or even vaguely sane opinions on Fascism. Really demonstrates how fucking horrid stalin and the majority of the soviet government was even after his death.

[@kinhoo18]

As a Brazilian this is unironically the most braindead analogy i've ever heard, what makes you think if it was (For some reason) Argentina and Brazil splitting South America between them or whatever you're trying to say, that Hakim would call it an alliance? Like seriously what makes you think this extremely poorly ellaborated-upon example is different? Hakim isn't even South American

[@qwerty-tv9wc]

So basically his argument is that Nazis and Soviets were not allies, because their pact merely divided spheres of influence in case Polish state "ceases to exist", while wholeheartedly ignoring the fact that it was Nazi-Soviet invasion that was the cause the Polish state ceased to exist. Like what was Stalin thinking? That one day Poland gets bored from existing and declares herself a territory ready to be colonized?

[@rockmycd1319]

He literally shows the quote where partition was planned for and pretends that it wasn’t so lol

[@lonelyone69]

I find it incredible that it was actually Molotov who would agree to the three powers pact at the end of their negotiations but Ribbentrop offered no formal reply to the request because of Stalin's stance on Tehran and then the Balkans. The only thing stopping the USSR from joining the axis powers as a formal member was Hitler and Stalin's egos.

[@yoloswaggins7121]

Tbf, they weren't exactly allies, but this misses the point. People like Hakim are quick too attack the West for appeasement, yet he will defend Soviet appeasenent which went much further. He is right that the Soviets were ideologically opposed to the Nazis, as were the West, and they feared them as a rival power, as did the West, but Stalin also admired H man much more than Western leaders did and would have allied with him if he could

[@rockmycd1319]

@@yoloswaggins7121 the Soviets didn’t do appeasement, they engaged in direct military and economic collaboration up until barbarossa.

[@himpim642]

@@rockmycd1319 they collaobrated to theri own benefirts and later cuase they wewre scared shitless as they saw germny annihilatign france in weeks and saw their own weakness.

[@jloiben12]

TLDR: Richard Evans literally defeated Holocaust Denial in court when his side had the burden of proving the truth of the Holocaust (because the British legal system is wack)

[@AlexRaucescu]

I couldn't disagree more with your last idea. That particular case happening isn't indicative of the british legal system being whack, it isn't the court's job to fight holocaust denialism by rejecting the claim firsthand(it's even harder to say that since it was a defamation suit, denialism was incidentally the subject of the "defamation"), it is a great victory for the court systems, a great victory for historical truth and a huge blow to holocaust denial and we can and should point to it as such as you did (on the latter 2 points) in your comment.

[@jloiben12]

@@AlexRaucescu What specifically do you think I mean when I say the British legal system is wack?

[@AlexRaucescu]

@@jloiben12 that Evans had to prove that the holocaust happened in court

[@jloiben12]

@@AlexRaucescu No. He had to prove this because the defense was using the defense of justification. To call someone a Holocaust Denier you need to prove the Holocaust is real. What I am saying is wack is that in the British legal system, the defamation is effectively presumed. That if you sue for defamation, the defense has to demonstrate that it is not defamation. The plaintiff doesn’t really need to show that it is defamatory. The burden of proof effectively rests on the defense, not the side that actually brings the case. And that is wack

[@AlexRaucescu]

@@jloiben12 yes, this was the case in the Erving suit, but to my knowledgd it isn't anymore. Sorry to be a nitpicking cunt, but I really think you should have caveated your initial comment to reflect this; i wrote my initial reply because I think we should stay away from unfair/unfounded/outdated critiques of the judiciary as a lack of trust in it has a very bad impact on democracy (lato sensu).

[@theoldhermit2601]

Hakim says "the USSR only signed the Pact because they wanted to stop Germany only on, but the West was too soft and they didnt like their appeasement" And apparently thats why the Soviets not only signed the Pact, but then occupied half of a sovereign nation that Germany just invaded, then went to war with Finland, and deciding not to help the Allies at all when the Allies *were* fighting Germany, only going to war once Germany invaded them specifically, in which they were then helped by Allied lend lease? So the Allies practiced appeasement before going to war in '39, and sending lend lease to the USSR once they were invaded, according to Hakim, is "too soft and not interested in collective defense" The USSR signed a non aggression pact with Germany, occupied half of Poland after they were invaded by Germany, went to war with Finland, didn't help the Allies in '39 and '40 at all, and then accepted Allied lend lease just a year later in '41 when THEY were the ones in danger, and according to Hakim, this is the USSR "wanting to stop Germany early through collective defense" Beyond parody man 😂

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

... you are a special type of person. Early on is not in the middle of the world war. For this argument to make sense you'd have to be cognitively restricted. The ussr tried multiple times too ally with western capitalist countries to either defend their territories or too ally as a defensive military alliance. When they were rejected (this is during 1934 not in the middle of the world war) they approached a policy of building themselves up against the nazis. This goes in line with occupying poland, along with the fact poland as a military power took over regions that in no way make up the core of the polish population. These two countries were at war and contested territories for a reason. Too take over the regions where minority citizens got discriminated by the polish ruling minority and the government of a literal military dictatorship btw, does not seem like a illogical move either way. Don't forget the fact multiple countries had defense pacts with germany before germany broke those too.

[@AsymmetricalCrimes]

Don't forget the USSR was also exporting raw materials to Germany all the way up until Operation Barbarossa.

[@ivanlaplante]

Why is it you communists always talk about "everyone else had defense pacts with the Nazis" yet none of you ever refer to them by neither name nor date? Give us some refs because something tells me the reason you don't is because this is either a half-truth or an outright lie.

[@ivanlaplante]

Like commies tends to do all the fucking time. (damn youtube censorship doesn't let me ask @hatinmyselfiscool2879 to provide refs for the supposed NAP everybody had with Germany. At minimum years and name of signatories or it didn't happen.)

[@ni9274]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 their proposition included stationing the soviet army in Poland which was obviously unacceptable for Poland since the USSR tried to invade them 20years before. They didn't build themself up and were unprepared when the Nazi finally started their invasion of USSR. So the fact that Poland took over regions that were not ethnically polish justify the annexation and subjugation of Poland by an empire that at this point already occupied multiple countries ? The USSR didn't care about ethnic minority oppressed by poland, they literally oppressed Ukrainians and belarussians who were previously oppressed by Poland. The USSR is a literal military dictatorship. To help Nazi Germany take over a country when you're supposed to oppose Nazi Germany doesn't seem like a logical move, especially since in the process they made it 10 times easier for Nazi Germany to start a surprise invasion of the USSR since now they don't have to cross an entire country to reach Soviet Territory and the bulk of the soviet forces guarding the border. Problem isn't the defence pack it's the co-invasion of Poland and the fact that the USSR kept a very friendly stance toward Nazi Germany while they were invading Europe, the Soviet sent a letter of congratulations to Nazi Germany for their successful invasion of France and didn't prepare to defend against a future Nazi invasion.

[@FilAnd01]

I love how he says we need to consider the situation the Soviet Union was in (which implies that it’s fine to work with Nazi germany if your country is a shithole) yet this dude is the same type of guy to defend Russian imperialism in Ukraine because “Ukraine are Nazis”… no the Soviets didn’t have any good material or moral reasons to care up Europe with Germany, it was imperialism that’s all.

[@rockmycd1319]

The argument would work for countries like Denmark where collaboration under OCCUPATION actually resulted in leverage gained and the protection of their Jewish population from antisemitic laws. They even managed to hold free elections in 1943 where the Danish Nazis got decimated lol. The situation is the opposite for the Soviets, since they had a ton of leverage from the start.

[@yoloswaggins7121]

Yeah this applies to Finland too. The poor Soviets were simply too weak and had no choice but to work with the Nazis. But Finland, a country tens of times smaller than the Nazis which was invaded by the Soviets are in the wrong for working with the Nazis. The situation Finland found itself in is irrelevant for some reason

[@kinhoo18]

When has Hakim ever justified Putin's invasion of Ukraine by claiming they're nazis?? Hakim literally condemned Russia and NATO alike many times, his position is that Russia's invasion was ilegal and unjustified, but that it was also a predictable consequence of NATO expansion. He literally is against both Imperialists 🤦🏿‍♂️

[@FilAnd01]

@@kinhoo18 putting Russia and nato on the same level is absurd to start with, but he hasn’t made a video about the war in Ukraine, he hasn’t even talked about it as far as I know (stopped watching his slop years ago) but he DOES talk about Gaza and how bad israel is (which is valid btw) quite often. The silence is deafening. Also note how he puts the blame on nato anyway in his “critique” of Russia. “Oh it’s a predictable consequence of nato expansion” IS justifying it. It doesn’t matter if he claims to be against it. He still defends Russia’s right to invade their neighbour and try to deny their sovereignty. It doesn’t matter if he buys into the garbage that Russia did it because of nato or not. He is actively justifying it by even claiming that. Would he say that mexico joining the CSTO or BRICS justifies America invading or even that it is “an understandable consequence”? No of course he wouldn’t. He is a red fascist, he is fine with imperialism and genocide as long as he thinks it harms the west and it is absolutely disgusting.

[@kinhoo18]

​@@yoloswaggins7121Finland actively worked *militarily* with the Axis, allowed Nazi soldiers to cross their territory to lay siege to Leningrad, killing millions of People. The USSR only “worked with” the Nazis by signing an NAP (Being the last ones to do so, Poland, GB, France, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Denmark, Romania, Latvia and Japan all did it before them) and continuing to trade with them specifically so they could develop their own Steel industry so they could stand up against Germany in the distant future, which they successfully did, and you should be thanking god they did, otherwise you'd be alot more Racist and Aryan today. Comparing nations who literally Fought alongside Hilter to the USSR who wanted to oppose it since 1934 is just crazy.

[@nikkovalidor4890]

friendship with Hitler-Stalin pact ended now we have the Piker-Fuentes pact

[@Local_Guild-Socialist]

Zoomer red-brown alliance 💀

[@IsomerSoma]

Is this just a meme or am i out of the loop?

[@Skiritai]

​@@IsomerSomaBoth Hasan Piker and Nixk Fuentes hate Jews.

[@Nihilistic_Soul]

Turkish mexican alliance 💪

[@ngotemna8875]

​@@IsomerSoma It's a meme. Hasan would never do that

[@tudosiealexandru6831]

Seeing his video as a Romanian was one of the cringiest experiences of my life.

[@luctapia]

i don't know which is more cringe, he's either too stupid to realize the flaws in his logic or he knows and he's just lying to his audience

[@bestaqua23]

I was *born* in the USSR . I feel like I'm going crazy

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

What a non statement too make.

[@RanEncounter]

​@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 Do you not see the irony of your comment?

[@vishg5148]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879begone clown

[@tereziamarkova2822]

12:17 - As a Slovak, GOD YES THANK YOU. Communist Czechoslovakia was a terrible regime. At its height in the early 1950s, state terror led to the hundreds of innocent people persecuted or even killed for offences such as being part of a religious order or admitting to fake charges under torture. Even during the "softer" totalitarianism of the so-called normalization era (1970s and 1980s), the state maintained an iron grip over the lives of its citizens, regularly spying on the populace and punishing even those who happened to be, say, relatives of the exiles with the loss of life opportunities. All of that could be true while, at the same time, it was still a walk in the park compared to the Slovakštát, a regime collaborating with the Nazis to such a degree that it participated in the invasion of Poland and USSR and even PAYED the Nazi Germany for "taking care of" its own Jewish citizens. And like. Stalin in particular can theoretically be compared to Hitler in terms of pure evil, but not whole of Soviet history was the Great Terror. In the late 1940s and 1950s, the worst of stalinist terror was actually over, and while USSR was still a totalitarian regime, it was more or less on the level of a regular dictatorship - that is, for all its evil certainly not comparable to the Nazis.

[@arskakarva7474]

Tho that brings us to the whole thing that being better than the nazis truly is damnation by faint praise. The bar isn't even on the ground, it has literally been dug underground in that comparison.

[@Notsogoodguitarguy]

But, for example, you have to remember that the countries further to the east got comparatively little of the Nazi atrocities and comparatively lot of the USSR atrocities. And it doesn't really matter if the nazis WOULD HAVE done something, it matters that the soviets actually DID DO something. Why are about 20% of the population of the baltic states soviet? It wasn't because of jolly cooperation. Why did the Fins collaborate with the Nazis? It wasn't because they were Nazi lovers, it was because of constant Russian aggression towards them, sustained over quite a long time. Why do Ukrainians still have nazi sympathizers? It's not because they love the nazis, it's because what the Soviets did to them was worse than what the nazis did to them. Nazis were, for the most part, a flash in the pan of the history of those countries, while the soviets were an omnipresent oppressive force. And people usually build opinions more strongly on bad experiences than on theory.

[@ReySchultz121]

​@@Notsogoodguitarguy There's also you know, the Russian Empire and its scars. All they saw was a red Tsar rather than a white one. Out with the old boss, in with the new one.

[@ciamciaramcia99]

Soviets in 1938: We could've defended Czechoslovakia if only those western nazi appeasers let red army march through Poland. Soviets in 1939: We just had to sign a pact with the nazis and partition Poland in half cause we needed plenty more time to prepare for war and those warmongering western imperialist provoke the war. It's always funny that in 1938, during the late stage of the great purge, Soviets acted as if they were ready to almost singlehandedly take on Germany to save Czechoslovakia from nazism, but just a year later suddenly they needed atleast few more years to prepare for war while fueling nazi war machine with oil & grain and using komintern parties propaganda outlets to undermine morale of western allied countries by portaying the war as an "imperialist conflict" that workers should be neutral in.

[@PatriotMapper]

Hakim says that the Poles hailed the Soviets as liberators that prevented the land from falling under Nazi rule, but conveniently leaves out that some Polish forces actively went out of their way to defy orders and attack Soviet troops (the Polish military leadership had ordered the military to not fight the Soviets) and that underground Polish resistance existed against both the Nazi and Soviet occupations.

[@airlesscanvas6425]

I am a Social Democrat, but people like Hakim is my primary reason I have a strong distrust of socialists and communists. The history revisionism, the purity spirals, the unwillingness to accept anything wrong that ever happened with a nation you have decided to simp for.

[@superdevton1137]

Personally, knowing the tomfuckery that the communists were up to in Germany and for the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact makes me never want to forgive the communists

[@stevestrangelove4970]

Tbf people like hakim, hasan or secondthought use socialislist-like speech to pish their agenda and move more socialy aligned people out of a more rational percepective to a emotional one. They are the same cancer the right has with trump or white supremacist. It end up hindering society as we need intelectualy strong left and right.

[@arskakarva7474]

Also the general bloodthirst and disdain for democracy.

[@airlesscanvas6425]

@@arskakarva7474 neither of those help either, especially the "democracy is only legitimate when we win" crowd.

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

Theres entire videos of critiques of socialist countries by hakim. Also, social democrat, you mean collaborator. Whatever you say shouldn't be taken seriously

[@amitklain4199]

Imagine if Hakim was as charitable to his enemies as he was to the USSR

[@theoldhermit2601]

The fact that people can see one of the most evil regimes in history do an action, and then see a regime they defend do the same action, and then say its different or somehow more justified, is just a level of cognitive dissonance I can't comprehend.

[@IamAlmostRealWitch]

it is actually really scary how delusional tankies are about USSR.

[@ottz2506]

It’s hard to believe he’s trying to debunk horseshoe theory.

[@kinhoo18]

You're already wrong in claiming both regimes did the “same action” in the first place, that's the whole point of what Hakim is saying, it's that people connect the actions of Nazi Germany with that of the Soviets based on extremely shallow analysis that dont go a step further beyond “Evil countries invade evilishly”, without actually taking into account what their motivations behind doing so were and how they contrasted with eachother

[@martinsriber7760]

@@kinhoo18 Motivations are irrelevant. You are not supposed to invade other countries, period. Hakim is not being nuanced, he is doing mental gymnastics.

[@kinhoo18]

@@martinsriber7760 Mate, tell me how many countries the U.S has invaded compared to Nazi Germany and the USSR and then cry in despair as your argument gets thrown in the trash along with your brain. *YES* , jimmy. Invading countries is bad. But do you know what's even worse? Having said countries be invaded by NAZIS instead, followed by yourself.

[@gabrielkapach9955]

I really don't understand why people who support a communist economic system always try to defend the actions of the USSR...

[@Morfo182]

because lots of information was fabricated specifically to undermine the economic system. you start from explisit and outrageous lies in movies, then you move to documentaries and see manipulation of facts or exaggerated personal stories to feed the same narrative, then you see false information in wiki, then in books. you end up at the point where someone who hasn't walked this path will be unwilling to listen and question their beliefs bc it's such crucial part of their worldview that some contradicting info is dangerous for the psyche and defence mechanisms shut cognitive abilities you don't have to whitewash all atrocities done in USSR to say some of them are myths or lies made up for discrediting alternative social structure.

[@ikengaspirit3063]

Because u don't just do magic and disappear from the capitalism economic system and appear in the communist economic system. You get there through a system and the USSR shows you that way.

[@rene280195]

Because they are sine qua non, You cannot talk about communist systems without having to deal with the horrific story of it being implemented, so they get the wrong idea that they have to wish wash the horrors of the pass so it doesn't botter them.

[@beans69beans]

@@ikengaspirit3063The USSR may have a good system of transitioning from capitalism to communism. Personally I doubt it since they seem to have gone in the opposite direction. Either way though, how does that excuse the imperialist actions of the USSR?

[@blaba2639]

i want communism but only my hypothetical perfect communism

[@Madman1234855]

The idea that Poland refused Soviet troops because of some then recent conspiracy theory and not the fact that they had only just won their independence from the Soviets in a brutal war is some very interesting framing of the Polish priorities at the time.

[@Mounstrum]

Brutal war of independence which bolsheviks granted poland? Also we talking about same war which poland started in 1920 when it started offensive on kiev. Thats a very interesting war of independence when you first have independence, then you attack country which openly agreed on this independence while being itself in state of civil war, and then cry about having need to fight “brutal war of independence”. Same way then germany was also fighting brutal war of independence with poland in 1939. “THINK MADMAN, THINK”

[@MyName-lq7rv]

@@MounstrumIt should be noted the Soviets struck first with their westwards offensive into Lithuania which took Wilno, a city which (at the time) was Polish majority. The Soviets (as the Soviets do) instituted a brutal regime and the Poles invaded to liberate their compatriots, whether they were honest or not, who is to judge. But it is without a doubt that the Soviets were the ones who invaded, they invaded Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania. Poland did a good deed by intervening and later allying with the Ukrainians, they were helping nations under attack from Moscow.

[@OSKR-uz2wt]

​@@Mounstrum why do you think the bolsheviks granted Poland independence, was it because they wanted them liberated or because they where like, you know, overthrowing a whole damn monarchy.

[@Mounstrum]

@@MyName-lq7rv you made a whole mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that soviets went back into basically lawless territory which they legally were sovereign over. You personal evaluations of their control of territory don’t matter in this context, in civil war nobody has unicorn life. Fight between paramilitary organisations mean not whole lot to say that it was “the start” of war. You ignored fact that soviets were the once who tried to establish truce which polish constantly denied. You ignored the local soviet organisations which also had support of local population. So calling soviets “invaders” on territory of civil war is like saying that modern day Assad invaded northeast part of syria. Poles on the other hand were for long time excluded from all of this. Nobody asked them to start Lithuanian-Polish war, Ukranian-Polish war, Czechoslovak-Polish war. Poland is rightfully called one of the intervention countries, because they involved themselves in this conflict. With ukraine its even funnier, because you basically admit that poles interned into territory of ongoing civil war because again, ukraine was part of greater civil war on territory of former russian empire. It wasn’t fully sovereign long lasting country with defined territory. It was a land of different factions. But hey, when facts don’t align with your narrative, its worse for a facts. And in your case you whole for your skewed historical narrative to work, you need to throw whole lot of historical context, actions of sides, include personal evaluations, and make whole sections of how it was back then to make this work. Goo try though

[@Mounstrum]

@@OSKR-uz2wt 🤨 You know that monarchy was overthrown by bourgeoise right? Thats not even mentioning that bolsheviks were supporters of nations right on self determination, something that capitalist country had to counter later im things like wilsons 21 points and aftermath of Versailles.

[@quintonlim4275]

Hakim defending facism (impossible)

[@angestellterderantifagmbh]

Imagine being a leftist who has Polish descendants that had to flee during the war. You see some of Hakim's videos where he talks about normal leftist stuff and think: Hey that guy is pretty cool. Then you see this video...i can't imagine the regret one has to feel...

[@MattexusYT]

I love how being a european more left wing social democrat allows me to both be on the left and an anti communist at the same time.

[@varjagen4160]

The fact he cites the opinion of a dude from when the secret protocols were still secret as an authority on the matter is so fucking laughable.

[@timothyernst8812]

I'm going to add my $0.02 as someone with a history degree. "Great man" history is frequently associated with Leopold von Ranke who detested GWF Hegel and his ideological approach to history (bear in mind Marx was a Hegelian). Von Ranke wanted to use documents, because they gave him something tangible to base his narratives on, and the great men of history were the only ones who had documents written directly about them. Ranke and Hegel preceded German unification, so there were still conservative monarchs during their lifetimes but not really dictators. The rise of dictators in the first quarter of 20th century isn't really what caused this particular period in historiography. In the mid 20th century social history replaced this methodology, because new research and interpretation methods were developed for analyzing documents. Medieval English peasants for example may not have chronicles or biographies, but they were EXTREMELY litigious and would sue the fuck out of anyone over pretty much anything. The British National Archives maintains those medieval court rolls, and you can learn a lot about what the peasants were up to not only as a class but even as individuals by reading the details of their lawsuits. People like Hakim, Hasan, SecoundThought et al are never going to do this research, because it requires a lot of interdisciplinary work, and they're unbelievably lazy. It's also not going to do anything to help them with maintaining their cults. "Theory" does that for them though.

[@Rimmy45]

The funny thing to me is that plenty of people like the ones you mentioned talk down upon the great man theory and introduce the idea of movements being done by masses and not by individual people and use that as an argument against historians in academia pretebding or believing that academic circles, regarding history, exclusively believe the great man theory and are unkowledgable about any other way of analysis or theoretical principles. Balkan Odyssey did it for example in a video called something like "The history you know is wrong" or something

[@arskakarva7474]

Yea they use terms like "material conditions" as magic words to bend reality to their will.

[@punishedbarca761]

​@@Rimmy45 what do they think about things like the crusades? That's literally the powerful men summer slam and I'm out of the loop on their theory of masses driving history.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

"EA NASIR!!! WHERE IS MY GOOD QUALITY COPPER?"

[@Rimmy45]

@@punishedbarca761 Depends on who you ask. I am not a Historian in academia but a Psychologist, but from what I gathered is that you cannot throw out the great man theory wholesale. There was movement of people present but someone stooped up to divert the winds. For instance Napoleon and Hilter, many historians will acknowledge material conditions, social factors and such, but those two people cannot be removed from the puzzle as they are pivotal to history. You can attribute that to the Crudades as well. I am not familiar with that period, but from my limited knowledge I could make a broad argument based upon that there were factors that made certain parts of the European population militant and willing to fight (or in their eyes resist or liberate) muslims or heretics, in their eyes, aided upon by larger figures, who metaphorically cast upon fuel to the fire that made the Crusades happen. This is a broad argument that could be wrong as I said I am not familiar in detail with that period. What I can suggest is Elliot Aronson where in his book Social Psychology in a later Chapter (some chapter after Ch 8, I cannot remember which one it is now) describes on how leaders are succesful or what makes them succsessful using 2 theories of leadership, the first one being based upon a basic understanding of great leaders - aka grand personal traits of a person makes them a good leader. I apologize for not being able to answer your question as well I wanted to but thats the best I could muster.

[@christianwhalen9263]

25:52 “the easily anticipated invasion” bro when they invaded the USSR Stalin was catatonic and didn’t respond for days, like they were bizarrely unprepared

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

If you'd have bothered to at least look the history up you would know why they were so "unprepared" (they weren't) Beginning in July 1940, the Red Army General Staff developed war plans that identified the Wehrmacht as the most dangerous threat to the Soviet Union, and that in the case of a war with Germany, the Wehrmacht's main attack would come through the region north of the Pripyat Marshes into Belorussia,[146][137] which later proved to be correct.[146] Stalin disagreed, and in October, he authorised the development of new plans that assumed a German attack would focus on the region south of Pripyat Marshes towards the economically vital regions in Ukraine. This became the basis for all subsequent Soviet war plans and the deployment of their armed forces in preparation for the German invasion.[146][147]

[@ni9274]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 Clearly you didn't look at history, obviously they identified the Wehermacht as the most dangerous threat to the Soviet Union since they were the first military power in Europe at this point, and obviously they had some plans in case of invasions, every nations make tons of plans to prepare for all scenario. The problem is that they didn't believe Hitler would invade so didn't position their forces correctly and didn't start ramping up their war industry. When the nazi reached Odessa they had already captured 700.000 Soviet soldiers and destroyed 7 Soviet armies, this is a the result of the extreme confusion and lack of communication of soviet forces when the invasion started, the fact that their position in Poland were too vulnerable and that they clearly didn't expect an invasion at this time.

[@grandgibbon2071]

To be fair Stalin had recently just purged the military command.

[@The_Chosen_Heretic]

Bruh the left is so fucking cooked.

[@savis0]

I like 50% of the script for Hakim's videos is just whining, narrativising, and non committal 'hm, I wonder why/ really makes you think'. Wonder why he is so defensive?

[@lucqq3792]

Wait I noticed this but at the same time didn’t. I thought he was just having Reddit moments but is it because he needs to keep his mask on?

[@savis0]

@@lucqq3792 My theory is he knows that he is lying, but he's convinced himself it's okay because to him the 'big picture' is true.

[@Notsogoodguitarguy]

A few things that come to mind when listening to Hakim: 1 - "USSR signed the pact because they wanted to buy time because they were ruined by WW1 and invasions and such". Oh, and Britain and France weren't ruined by WW1? They were just Scrooge McDucking through seas of cash and men and capacities and such. Yes, definitely, and they just signed pacts with Hitler because they suck and betrayed the USSR, yes, definitely. Now, on a more non-retarded and serious note, if I remember correctly, Britain literally couldn't fight a war with Germany. The reason why they signed the pact with Poland was cause they thought the THREAT of the defensive pact would be enough to deter Germany (it wasn't). 2 - Hakim: The USSR knew that Germany will invade Poland because they're not stupid and they can read into the subtext of what the Germans were presenting. Also Hakim: The USSR was surprised when Hitler invaded Poland and scrambled to invade as well. 3 - about your point for the Horseshoe theory - people don't actually know the extent of Germany's crimes against humanity, because most of them happened on their own territories and in Poland. And countries like Ukraine suffered MASSIVELY more under the Soviets than under the Nazis. It doesn't matter if the Nazis had plans that were worse and were there for a shorter amount of time. People's experiences are usually much more impactful on their opinions than some theoretical alt-history that didn't happen. The Soviets exterminated 10% of Ukraine (in the best case, there's other estimations that can be up to 15% or so). They drove them into such starvation that they had to start criminalizing cannibalism. People had to choose to die so that their kids might eat their flesh so that they don't starve. They were forced to carry special passports that prohibited them from leaving the country and escaping the famine that Stalin had imposed on them. Whatever theoretical threat the Nazis posed to them, they wouldn't care, because anything would have been better for them than the Soviets (until it wasn't, but, you know). That's why the horseshoe theory exists - not because of what would have been done, but what was actually done. And, to a lot of people, getting shipped off to a concentration camp and dying isn't markedly different than being literally locked in your own country, in your own town, without being allowed to leave, and literally starved to death. If the nazis would have implemented their full plans, this would've been different, but they didn't, so they aren't. Also, the way that both countries operated internally, there wasn't actually that much difference. Both were authoritarian totalitarian fascists in practice. And a system isn't what it says it is, it is what it does.

[@Pleb2000]

The interview from ambassador davies he cites is very silly for 2 reasons: 1) It's an interview during the war when allied media was strictly controlled and sought to rehabilitate the USSR's image as a war-time ally. 2) Ambassador Davies was comically naive about Stalin and his intentions, consistently advocating pro-Soviet stances in diplomacy to FDR and Truman, to the point that he actually believed that the victims of the great purge were guilty. He physically attended Bukharin's show trial in the 1930s and thought Stalin had narrowly dodged a coup. I'd recommend Robert Gellately's book 'Stalin's Curse' if you're interested in Soviet foreign policy and the interactions with the allies during this period.

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

So your argument for why Davies shouldn't be taken seriously are because he supported soviet integration... And he supported soviet integration because he shouldn't be taken seriously. That's called circular logic.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

​@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 The argument is that the source is biased.

[@Pleb2000]

@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 idk how you can read my comment like that. I’m saying the interview with Davies is a bad source because of the wartime context and the fact that his view of Soviet intentions was consistently naive and demonstrably wrong when it came to the purges and later the postwar regimes in Eastern Europe. If you want a factual source for figuring out Soviet intentions in Molotov-Ribbentrop, a wartime interview of an American ambassador with a reputation for overestimating the Soviet’s good intentions is a poor choice.

[@IsomerSoma]

​@@hatinmyselfiscool2879 You aren't very bright aren't you?

[@gm_euler]

37:50 Wouldn’t the reason Poland be hesitant to ally themselves with the Soviet Union was due to the Soviet-Polish war, no?

[@alecatnight1540]

Hakim probably likes luxury

[@kinhoo18]

As evidenced by?

[@olegregg2857]

Found hakims alt account in the comments

[@kinhoo18]

@@olegregg2857 Incredible Evidence

[@Nihilistic_Soul]

​@@kinhoo18arabs are very materialistic

[@GBGB000]

It's hard to fathom how boneheaded and divorced from reality you have to be to stan Stalin in 2024.

[@paulpenfold867]

Recently finished reading a collection of Orwell's essays - he has so many choice comments about the confused propaganda of British communists regarding Nazi-Soviet relations, and of how difficult it was for them to follow the changing "line" from Moscow on international affairs.

[@Helmet_Von_Moldy]

Super smart socialist historian, who criticizes pop history, forgot about East Prussia in his video. Also, I like LonerBox’s take on Nazism and Communism false equivalencies

[@Thor12233]

Wait what did he say. Timestamp?? Pls?

[@zeex5029]

Hasan reacting to that vid without budging was so disappointing, even though his standard was low, just like his whole coverage of the Ukrainian war and the region as a whole, but maybe I was just naive and became disillusioned. The only redeeming aspect was him not commenting much on the revisionism, as he probably was out of his depth lmao.

[@rockmycd1319]

Expecting Hasan to not buy into the Soviet apologist line is like expecting the Sun to not rise in the morning

[@zeex5029]

I mean, he always downplayed eastern block suffering and soviet imperialim, but this is a new low

[@SadisNic]

Using the fact the Stalin tried to align Britain and France against Germany but was rebuffed as a proof of good intentions is ignorant because Mussolini did the exact same thing in 1935, known as the Streza Front. By his logic, Mussolini wasn't a bad guy either.

[@SadisNic]

And on the topic of the treatment of Jews in the USSR under Stalin, another point to look at Mussolini as a comparison, Mussolini refused to deport Jews to Germany at Hitlers request, with historians agreeing the Holocaust didn't come to Italy until German occupation of North Italy, resulting in Italy having lost only about 9% of its Jewish population from Ww2, the lowest of any European country. So Mussolini, the literal founding of Fascism, if not Gabrielle D'annunzio (Who Lenin called the only true revolutionary in Europe), treated Jews better than Stalin.

[@James-ic7vx]

I used to be part of the anti-Vaush ML scene in 2020-21 and was big into Hakim back then. Fortunately I got out of the scene before clowns like Haz and Jackson Hinkle took it over. After experimenting with Trotskyism and Bordigism, I no longer follow any Leninist schools of thought and I want to see the left become more critical of Lenin.

[@hatinmyselfiscool2879]

Of course Trotskyism did it. Revisionism in action:

[@matthiaseriklutge8652]

The Berlin KPD even went on Strike together with the NSDAP in the Verkehrsarbeiterstreik in '32

[@Local_Guild-Socialist]

it's almost like the motherfuckers calling themselves 'the national SOCIALIST German WORKERS party' had some.... socialist elements? but this truth would be inconvenient for both the far-left and far-right so let's just ignore the leftist phalanx of the Nazis real quick.

[@crow-dont-know]

Why is it that whenever I hear MLs talk about politics, everything is reduced to simplistic motivations, until it's time to talk about regimes they like and then it's "an incredibly nuanced episode of history"?

[@jblock2490]

Hakim's map of Europe pre-WW2 doesn't show German control of east Prussia and it's bothering me

[@PowderedToastMan3]

Stalin directly ordered the Red Army to not “provoke” the Germans by being in high alert and assuming defensive position, much less defense in depth, right up to the invasion. At least the French and British were actually on defensive posture during the Battle of France.

[@danieleaquilanti4705]

Stopped watching at "Rosa Luxemburg was against the idea of starting a revolution because she wanted to run in elections"

[@lonerboxlive]

Because it’s true? She wrote a piece literally calling for people to participate in the January elections. Liebknecht etc wanted the uprising to happen before the election, specifically because they didn’t want to run (makes sense given how little national support they had). The decision went to a vote and Rosa lost. www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/23.htm

[@dalfokane]

@@lonerboxlive Pretty sure Rosa Luxemburg wrote a book on why starting a revolution is better than running in elections

[@arthurmorganfrompayday2]

​@@dalfokaneand also in the piece linked above states: "Here, of course, the analogy stops. For real advocates of the revolution and of socialism, participation in the National Assembly today can have nothing in common with the customary traditional method of ‘exploiting parliament’ for so-called ‘positive gains’. We will not participate in the National Assembly in order to fall back into the old rut of parliamentarism, nor to apply minor corrective patches and cosmetics to the legislative bills, nor to ‘match forces’, nor to hold a review of our supporters, nor for any other reasons described in the well-known phraseology of the bourgeois-parliamentary treadmill and in the vocabulary of Haase and comrades."

[@ellis7622]

Thanks for the video lonerbox, they are always very informative!

[@Drigallski]

oh no, the fascist Hasan orbiter is doing a fascist apologia video. Who couldve seen that coming.

[@C0urne]

Has Hasan given Hakim an endorsement?

[@ni9274]

@@C0urne yep, went on his podcast and always watch his videos

[@C0urne]

@@ni9274 Jeez, I could almost understand H being friends w 2nd thought. At least he wasn't always a tankie but Hakim? Whatever brings the views I guess.

[@longliverocknroll5]

@@Drigallski lmao I’m sorry, but if we’re now calling Hakim a “fascist”, you’re politically incompetent

[@Drigallski]

@@longliverocknroll5 Hakim is a fascist though

[@greycoloris7665]

Hakim always biased, child who just believes everything Lenin said, forcibly ignoring any problems - bc otherwise he couldn't just complain about other people missing his ready-made, obvious, "sUpErIoR" vision (like all pseudo-leftist elitists), but would have to offer a better vision of society himself that _does_ acknowledge them. Intellectually, Laclau left these people behind in the 80s.

[@lonelyone69]

Its really ironic that they hate nazis while simultaneously created their own eugenics philosophy.

[@norbetjagamara5536]

Lol at 12:40 between the Russian Civil War and those two treaties the Soviet Union had already invaded and annexed Ukraine and Belarus and also invaded Poland but failed. This is always glossed over by tankies. Also the map of the Soviet Union he uses, not only does it not include those newly conquered territories, it doesn't include the Soviet Republics of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan but also most egregiously, it includes Vyborg which wasn't even part of the Soviet Union until the 1940 Winter War. I wonder why these other European countries looked at the USSR with suspicion... How dishonest can you get. Also the map of Germany doesn't include East Prussia but maybe I'm just too OCD.

[@Majorwindy]

Glad to see this segment is up now. Was a funny one to watch at the time. What an absurd defence of the USSR

[@splasq3511]

Hakims mental gymnastics is actually insane

[@GuttTruck]

Hakim justifying imperialism say it ain't so...

[@bunniesmelo]

lets go editor my attention span is pleased with ur work

[@jloiben12]

It isn’t an alliance. They are just saying how they’d split the spoils of war

[@Gallstonehaverandcruncher1974]

The hypothetical war, in which they wouldn't aid the enemies of the other. In which they would not fight each other. After which they would share the spoils. It isn't an alliance but it's truly the next best thing

[@rockmycd1319]

@@Gallstonehaverandcruncher1974 The “hypothetical” war that was already planned for by Germany, thereby also making the partition planned for.

[@Calebe428]

Whats the saying leftists love? If you have 1 nazi...

[@himpim642]

yu[p,and even that for time being as they were unde curtain openly hostile to each other.

[@tomaszmankowski9103]

@@Gallstonehaverandcruncher1974 The "hypothetical war" - right? R-M Pact was signed on 23rd August 1939. Germany planned to invade on the 26th, so THREE days later. When you are signing a treaty to share territories of independent countries in case of a "hypothetical war" which started a week later you are not talking about some imagined conflict. Armies do not start invasions in a week - it takes planning, gathering and moving troops, major recon activity etc. Nazi Wehrmacht and Soviet Red Army were both involved in the same invasion of the same country. Some POL divisions fought both Soviets and Germans in the same are, often during the same couple of days. That includes the second largest battle of the campaign during the fourth and fifth week of September.

[@skysamurai4649]

22:42 “USSR was the last country to sign a non aggression pact” - and the only to have secret protocols in it.

[@auntielu8531]

In Poland we call it _pakt Ribbentrop-Mołotow_ and my brain lags a little every time I hear _Molotov-Ribbentrop._ It doesn’t sound right to me.

[@danielborza4399]

nazbols are adorable. I had an argument with one of them, when asked whether or not the N@zis can be considered leftists? Their argument was: no, but only because they attacked the Soviet Union.

[@pewpewpandas9203]

Something I'm interested in is how much more rapid (if any) was industrialization under Stalin's regime than it would have been under a different soviet leader. Were Stalin's policies of any help at all (even if brutal), or would the same results have come about anyways without any of the brutality? (Obviously his farming policies were hot garbo, I'm more discussing the factories in the urals and such)

[@crunter6523]

Isn't this like a reeeeeally old live?

[@tranceturkey666]

Might have missed it, but it is interesting that he did not mention the other secret protocols involving the Soviets and Germans dividing up their spheres of influence in the Baltic and Balkans. Even if we were to grant hakim the insane claim that the Soviets weren’t interested in Poland, what about these other sovereign nations?

[@yaaraamozig4862]

Very interesting, thank you

[@kaerakh4267]

You don't need Horse Shoe Theory when you know who Georges Sorel is.

[@gma5607]

Truly exceptional amounts of ‘It didn’t happen, and if it did they had it coming.’

[@qwerty-tv9wc]

51:11 heard about Wehrmacht soldiers doing the same in Western Poland as well. Buying plenty of ham and sending it home by post. There was already food reglamantation in Germany even before 1st September, while Poland was occupied too quickly for any food shortages to occur.

[@arskakarva7474]

Germany in general at the time was obsessed (for good reason given the balance of food imports) with food security, and engaged in massive looting and force requisitions of foodstuffs in their occupation zones. Part of the cruel logic of the Hunger Plan was that it's two birds with one stone if they just starve out the Eastern Europeans that aren't going to contribute to the war effort anyway and at the same time clear out the land of its existing population. The Hunger Plan was suspended in 1942 when the mass consciption of slave labor started, tho the tension between the goal of genocide and the needs of war production persisted all the way to 1945. Timothy Snyder's Black Earth and Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction go into great detail regarding this.

[@tomaszmankowski9103]

@@arskakarva7474 The Hunger Plan was suspended, but famine ontinued. For example in occupied Poland the entire food production was controlled by Germany and the % of requisitioned food was rising e.g. in later 1943 in Warsaw district is was around 50% of the entire food production. The entire system was genocidal and very much corrupted because everyone was trying to use bribes, hide the real numbers etc, but it didn't matter anyway. It was never supposed to be efficient or sustainable, but to provide quotas which were in general met - barbarity of occupation forces helped in that. People could only survive thanks to the black market which made them all criminals who could be killed as a punishment. It is estimated by Polish historians dealing with the occupation that in 1946 the entire agricultural section of the local economy would collapse and mass starvation would kill millions of mainly poorer people. I believe the fact is still less known or fully undertood.

[@CyberDandy]

Esperanto is worth looking more into

[@user-eo1ju3uu9x]

I like two things: how it was described that Poland was not eager to communicate with Soviet Union. They literally had war in 20s and were almost occupied by the Soviet's. Also, that the Soviet's was having first round of industrialization. One who knows the history of Eastern Europe just a bit knows that it is bullshit. For example, in my hometown the number of industrial plants decreased after Soviets came to power. The reason for that was that they killed and oppressed a lot of engineers, economists and owners of that objects (a handful of them Jewish actually)

[@user-xl2it6wg1l]

The war that began with Poland's invasion of Ukraine and Belarus. The Polish army occupied Kiev and Minsk long before a Soviet soldier set foot on Polish soil for the first time. And yes, under the Soviets, the largest industrialization occurred on the territory of the former Russian Empire, this is a historical fact. Isolated examples (by the way, you did not specify which city you are from) simply melt into dozens and hundreds of successful production increases, not to mention how much the volume of engineers has increased due to the growth of educational institutions and the involvement of foreign specialists. Have you really studied the history of Eastern Europe? A real one, not an alternative one.

[@user-eo1ju3uu9x]

@@user-xl2it6wg1l You know that is bullshit?) Ukraine and Belarus were both independent from Soviet and Soviets tried to occupy this land

[@Radonatorr]

@@user-xl2it6wg1l No, the war was an independence war for Poland, who was occupied by the Russian Empire for 100 years. Poland occupied Kiev togather with allied forces of East Ukrainian Republic and installed in Kiev Ukrainian authorities of Simion Petlura, who were a year earlier attacked and pushed out from Kiev by Soviets. So not only was Poland fighting to established its independence from Russians, but it was fighting to secure genuine Ukrainian independence

[@MrMctastics]

The Soviets and Nazis weren't the same. Tankies and neo-nazis are identical

[@valravn6777]

"Communists thought electing nazis would help them achieve their goal" Boy does that sound familiar

[@ek5273]

I spetted in dog shit two days ago and it reminded me of Hakim

[@angestellterderantifagmbh]

@LonerBox would be great if you could put the book title into the description next time...took me at least 40 seconds to find out ;) Ngl this is a great source to debunk this BS take that Stalin was just 6D Chess player (just like Putin, right?)

[@Mnnwer]

Love this breakdown.

[@jackhakken]

"There are no great men and history is made by people and material factors." The mindset of the lesser people.

[@skysamurai4649]

40:33 “much of the soviets efforts were focused on improving lives of the people” - probably by exporting grain during famine and deportation of their citizens to Siberia, including entire nations, like Crimean Tatars and Povolzhie Germans (I’ve seen a great exposition on this in Engels regional museum)

[@SAMcGarvey1]

0:48 More like Ultramarine theory

[@dirtydeeds4free553]

The communists and the fascists are indeed very, very similar. The only real difference between them is their rhetoric. Ideologically, they have different goals, but I've yet to see them use different means and get to a different end

[@seneca983]

33:20 Note, the book is being misleading here. This person (Alfred Liskow) wasn't shot immediately or anything. His report wasn't believed, at least not by Stalin, but after Barbarossa had begun he was still alive and the Soviets used him for propaganda purposes. However, he was sent to a prison camp the next year.

[@Lasstpak]

No surprise that Red Army reacted the way they did in Poland, because they just got Industrialized. BRO Poland wasn't even close to be industrialized...

[@jloiben12]

The far left and the far right are on opposing ends. The problem is people dishonestly, or without a sufficient understanding of, say that groups like Tankies are left wing. They aren’t. Of course when you talk about right wingers they will be on the right. This is tautological.

[@airlesscanvas6425]

Nah I am fairly sure horseshoe theory is correct on this one.

[@theoldhermit2601]

Agreed, and even if *granted* the premise of tankies being left wing, you don't have to believe in Horseshoe Theory for two countries of opposing ideologies to make a temporary alliance. Hell, just a few years after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, we saw democratic capitalist countries make a temporary alliance with the totalitarian communist USSR, completely opposing ideologies that came together to defeat their common enemy in the Axis powers.

[@theoldhermit2601]

Hakim making such a flimsy, strawman-esque point of "anyone who believes Germany and the USSR formed an alliance must be a Horseshoe Theory peddling liberal" instantly is so smarmy lol

[@jloiben12]

@@airlesscanvas6425 No. Don’t allow fascistic MLs to co-opt leftism

[@Thor12233]

​@@jloiben12 world is not as simple as left and right. For example socialism and capitalism isnt inherintly leftist or right wing. There are other factors. In eastern europe both soviet union and nazi germany are connsidered socialist states that were right wing. Todays amerucancommunist are no way the same as soviet union communist. Siviets would never accept them because they are complete opposites.

[@matt_9112]

Yo Hakim von Ribbentropp. Coincidence? I think not.

[@1984isnotamanual]

30:00 people call Stalin an atheist but he seemed to be a quasi-believer because of how dogmatic and superstitious he was

[@flavius5722]

Superstititions dosen't neceserarely have any bond with religion , superstions are a form of paranoia with few to non base în reliogion laws who are colective while the superstions are mostly individualistic beliefes For examples different members of the same family make their own superstitions not shared by the rest of the members

[@polkka7797]

Evens is cool, but always felt kershaw has the best stuff on nazi Germany and how it ruled. Might just be my view of history though

[@daafitko]

15:15 Yes. USSR offered military aid to CSR , but the leadership refused, instead hoping their western allies would help.

[@Mila-kz8tt]

52:00 You know what other nationality was happy to see their country men in Poland ? Germans

[@huskadog7748]

15:27 but they where absolutely in a position to do it in the early 30s, if a front had been opened up for them to fight on. If hitler took poland first the Soviets would have probably invaded over austria or Czechoslovakia.

[@herowesley1804]

Anyone that calls Maidan a "coup" is dumb as hell in my opinion. (Context-Deprogrammed podcast, theyve called it that multiple times)

[@Pawel274]

I would like to see Hakim discuss with Polish right-wingers who believe that Putin's Russia is a communist country XD

[@zarlei6048]

I don't know what you're reading but those Generalplan Ost percentages are completely wrong.

[@PatriotMapper]

Wait, so Hakim says that there was no secret protocol to partition Poland, and then puts up the very protocol LATER IN THE SAME VIDEO that says the Nazis and the Soviets would establish their new border at the Vistula River in Poland?!? I’m genuinely aghast. This a new level of stupidity, even for a tankie.

[@Patchowisky]

Operation Osoaviakhim

[@ottz2506]

Hakim is another person to add to the list of “I wish I could send them to a time they seem to long for so much”. For Hakim, it’s Stalin’s Russia. To his chagrin, the list includes Charlie Kirk (pre civil rights America or if that’s too progressive, pre Emancipation Proclamation USA) and Nick Fuentes (13th century England).

[@Cat_Guevara]

His father worked in the USSR so I guess it wasnt all bad

[@nekoill]

People who have actual education and thus know history?

[@Cat-yz1tk]

Is hakim a muslim? He has the phrase "la ilaha ila allah" in his twitter bio

[@emilchan5379]

Iirc Hakim is Iraqi.

[@plaguemouse5549]

Tankie try to not be fascist and not use fascist logic challenge. Level: impossible.

[@jwomackandcheese73]

No seriously... it makes it really hard to be a leftist cuz everyone associates you with people like Hakim and SecondThought

[@BasilAbdef]

@@jwomackandcheese73 People like them are the ones in charge of all the notable leftist spaces online, run most of the large (at least American) leftist organizations offline, have been the ones in charge of self proclaimed leftist nations in history... It's about as hard for a leftist to shake these associations as it is for a right winger to shake accusations of sexism or racism.

[@WWSzar]

Please debate him

[@WWSzar]

@@Solaris_Paradox On this topic? lol

[@WWSzar]

@@Solaris_Paradox Trying to defend the Soviet cooperation with the Nazis whilst condemning the west’s and Poland’s cooperation with the Nazis is so easy to break apart though.

[@intelligent_kiddo9578]

​@@Solaris_ParadoxI think the 'him' in the end of your sentence is unnecessary. But, to be fair, so is your ability to type comments on the internet

[@huskadog7748]

32:55 uhh, No. If they did that would be moronic. An invasion of the united states is impossible full stop and even the nazis knew that. The nazis had no desire to go to war with the united states, because first off he thought they where Arian, and second off it would have been 10 thousand times stupider than sealion, which was already called off for being too stupid.

[@kuzz4587]

33:43 holy baaased

[@Cat_Guevara]

Nope he is just delusional

[@SUDMONEYBAGS]

Do a video debunking zoomer historian next