It is not revisionism.You're going to need to flesh this snippet of revisionism out.
Not only did Britain and France not do enough to oppose Nazism, they actually gave diplomatic cover for Hitler's aggression against Czechoslovakia. And Poland and Romania together prevented the Red Army from helping Czechoslovakia. From the Soviet perspective, the position of the UK and France was that they were absolutely fine with Hitler marching east and the Soviet Union facing him alone. So they looked out for themselves.Britain and France didn't do enough to oppose Nazism (agreed), so therefore this vindicates the decision to ally with Nazis, and invade/annex other countries?
What I find interesting is that Trump's Gaza policy is just Bush in a more unhinged package. Trump floated the idea of having US troops violate the region, this being yet another millitary misdadventure in the Middle East with a terrorist attack as the casus beli. Trump even repeated Bush era talking points about it ''helping'' the people who live there.Wait, what? Support of Bush Jr.? I mean, maybe nowdays as Trump has eclipsed him and makes people nostalgic for more normal levels of evil, but the Iraq war was roundly and constantly condemned. Also to a lesser extent, Afghanistan and his general foolishness.
I'd prefer that they didn't ally with Hitler to carve Europe up between them, assisting them with joint conquest and promising them more. Which is what happened.It is not revisionism.
Not only did Britain and France not do enough to oppose Nazism, they actually gave diplomatic cover for Hitler's aggression against Czechoslovakia. And Poland and Romania together prevented the Red Army from helping Czechoslovakia. From the Soviet perspective, the position of the UK and France was that they were absolutely fine with Hitler marching east and the Soviet Union facing him alone. So they looked out for themselves.
I know, I know. You'd prefer that in doing so, they didn't deny any part of Poland to Hitler. That's your prerogative, I guess.
Sure. This is true and a problem.Trump is encouraging a settlement that involves Ukraine ceding Crimea and much of the 4 other occupied territories to Russia, but providing Ukraine with no security guarantees. This would set a new post-WW2 precedent, that seizure of territory by force is acceptable to the international order.
Sure.A peace treaty is effectively going to have to be a compromise. A compromise looks very much like it will have to involve Ukraine permanently conceding territory, and at minimum that's going to be Crimea. It might be able to fudge an acceptance of the status quo for the other four oblasts in partial occupation, without formally ceding them.
Ukraine can reasonably argue that ceding land would not represent a solution at all, unless accompanied by real guarantees-- emboldened by success, Russia would inevitably invade again in a few years. It's what they did last time they were allowed to seize territory. And the time before that.Sure. This is true and a problem.
Unfortunately, there a major practical problem. Russia is squatting on a large chunk of Ukraine's territory and grinding out a very slow advance over more. Russia will not be evicted unless someone very substantial (the USA or Europe) commits a military force in support of Ukraine. Russia is not going to give up anything it has easily, because it's winning - even if incredibly slowly and expensively.
So what's it to be? Commit troops in support of Ukraine, or a peace treaty?
A peace treaty is effectively going to have to be a compromise. A compromise looks very much like it will have to involve Ukraine permanently conceding territory, and at minimum that's going to be Crimea. It might be able to fudge an acceptance of the status quo for the other four oblasts in partial occupation, without formally ceding them.
As a repudiation of the UN principle that countries should not take territory by force, Ukraine ceding land is appalling. On the other hand, what better option is genuinely available?
you’d think a historian would be extra aware Russia has nothing to be proud of. It’s all just tyranny and backwardness in all areas. History is a supremely poor argument for Russian superiority. Quite the opposite really. It’s hard to imagine a country more consistently backwards which raises some unfortunate implications for the “Russian soul”Russia's delegation is led by Vladimir Medinsky, former minister of culture, and ultraconservative pop-historian. He's an outspoken admirer of Stalin, and as minister of culture he produced cultural guidelines encouraging a "rejection of tolerance and multiculturalism". He's also claimed that Russians have an "extra chromosome" which gives them innate superiority (!?).
I would counter that your criteria of what is worth being proud of is colored by your values whereas Medinsky wouldn't have gotten into that position if he didn't have values that aligned with what the Russian regime values.you’d think a historian would be extra aware Russia has nothing to be proud of. It’s all just tyranny and backwardness in all areas. History is a supremely poor argument for Russian superiority. Quite the opposite really. It’s hard to imagine a country more consistently backwards which raises some unfortunate implications for the “Russian soul”
They didn't. Check the timeline of the invasion of Poland. That's not an alliance nor a joint operation.I'd prefer that they didn't ally with Hitler to carve Europe up between them, assisting them with joint conquest and promising them more.
Sure.They didn't. Check the timeline of the invasion of Poland.
Then what was it? A supremely quirky coincidence that they signed a treaty dividing Europe between them and that they just so happened to jointly invade Poland?They didn't. Check the timeline of the invasion of Poland. That's not an alliance nor a joint operation.
The revisionist view in Russian nationalist history is that the pact was a necessity to prevent those countries falling fully into the Nazis' hands.Then what was it? A supremely quirky coincidence that they signed a treaty dividing Europe between them and that they just so happened to jointly invade Poland?
The Polish military had entirely disintegrated in those 17 days. You would prefer the Soviet Union simply let the Nazis take all of it.September 1, 1939: Nazi Germany invades Poland.
September 17, 1939: USSR invades Poland.
I hope you’re not suggesting the red army moving in, slaughtering Polish citizens and then tyranizing the country for decades was some sort of humanitarianism?The Polish military had entirely disintegrated in those 17 days. You would prefer the Soviet Union simply let the Nazis take all of it.
The Nazis took what they took with the express advance approval of the Soviet Union in a quid quo pro, you risible clown. They then continued to supply the Nazis with enormous amounts of war material well into 1941 to fuel further conquest, and held rounds of talks to join the fucking Axis. "Together with the Germans we would have been unstoppable", Stalin's daughter reported he said.The Polish military had entirely disintegrated in those 17 days. You would prefer the Soviet Union simply let the Nazis take all of it.
I'm sure everyone would agree it was fantastic that the USSR managed to save Poland from the grip of Western capitalism, at least for about 45 glorious years. Unfortunately, those Solidarity trade union fools ruined everything and sold out their country to the rapacious USA.I hope you’re not suggesting the red army moving in, slaughtering Polish citizens and then tyranizing the country for decades was some sort of humanitarianism?