It’s a fact.

  • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    21 hours ago

    If that’s a ‘fact’ it should be easy to prove right?
    Or is it more likely you pulled it from your ass?

      • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Yawn, this again.
        As I thought, pulled from your ass and the same cheap tricks they try to claim with this pact.
        A non-aggression treaty is not “split Europe between them”

        Wait I’ll return the favor:
        Here is the deal between the nazis and their friends from England to split Europe between them.
        https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030005003

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          You might read the whole first sentence of the article

          was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, with a secret protocol establishing Soviet and German spheres of influence across Eastern Europe.

          • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 hours ago

            LOL Maybe you should learn that Wikipedia is not a source and proven to be extremely biased and manipulated.
            You don’t even know that.
            And even that Wiki page doesn’t cite sources, something you need if you don’t want to be seen as just making shit up, which you clearly are.
            You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              Wikipedia just has approachable articles, so I linked to that since you seemingly hadn’t heard of the pact. It cites sources like so [1] for further reading. And the existence of such pact has been admitted to in Germany, Soviet Union and later in Russia. Its existence isn’t exactly controversial. It’s rather how justified it was that’s argued about.

              You claim it’s in that pact, then go to the absolute source and show me where it is.

              Here’s the original texts [1], [2]. If you want an English translation, plenty of them online. Heres’ one (pdf). The secret protocols are at the end.

              • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 hours ago

                you seemingly hadn’t heard of the pact

                I’ve been to school and it’s invariably mentioned to make the BS claims you make.
                And I probably know better than you how Wikipedia works.
                NONE of the references show what they claim.
                The original texts talk about ‘spheres of influence’ in the tiny Baltics andthe rest is only about Poland.
                It even says:
                " The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish States and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments."
                That hardly sounds like ‘dividing Europe between them’.
                I could call that a deliberate misinterpretation.
                If you want countries making deals with the nazis that literally say they can annex them even look to the Brits and France. “Czechoslovakia must surrender its border regions and and defenses to Nazi Germany” is more like it.
                Funny how they never mention that or the dozen of other pacts with nazis, all of them before the Soviets.

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  I mean they are literally drawing spheres of interest (even using the word) in there on how they’ll divide those countries. And then after the deal, they conquered and subjugated their subjective areas (or tried to, in case of Finland). Your objection to that not being them dividing Europe between them is, not to be insulting, kinda silly.

                  I mean if anything at least you’re not trying to deny such an agreement, you’re just reading it in a very interesting way. That’s something.

                  • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 hours ago

                    As I said ‘spheres of influence and still having the option of having an independent state in Poland’ sounds a lot less bad than simply handing over Sudetenland.
                    Complaining about only one and ignoring the worse other one is hypocritical at best.
                    And imagine blaming the Soviets for going in to countries aligned with nazis.
                    Like Finland, where you’re probably are from and explains your bias.