O no! Not the nazisss

Insert meme: Oh, I wouldn't say "freed", more like "under new management" 😅

Often hilarious how the history is biased by some collectives. Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done. After this the cold war, where secret US papers were filtred, specifying locations in Europe where they were going to use nuclear bombs to stop an alleged Russian invasion.

Cuba crisis, it causes almost a WWIII, because evil Russia wanted to park there nuclear missiles. What is never mentioned, was,that it was an answer to the US nuclear missiles that were parked long before in Turkey, pointing to Russia. The escalation was avoided by an Rusian commander, while the US already had the finger on the red button.

Yes, certainly communism is really bad and the US the good boys which always save the world, even by nuke civilians in two cities, training and arm jihadists and Talibans, destroying democracies supporting dictators, like the September 11 with over 3000 victims, in 1973, when the CIA organized and supported an military coup by Pinochet to eliminate Allende.

Most of the currend Wars in the world and dictatorships are direct or indirect caused by the work of our good US boys. Thank you America, GFY

I refuse to believe that the tweet is real. This is just satire, right guys? Hahaha, please be satire

I see you're lucky enough not to be familiar with the Victims of Communism Foundation. This is pretty standard for them.
They're also extremely successfully at mainstreaming these kind of views: they're often cited by "respectable" western media like BBC, are used by Wikipedia, and are the original and only source for a lot of the kind of scandalous accusations against China that liberals will call you a tankie if you don't believe

Since we're starting this debate again, I do wish to ask the people that think the Soviets shouldn't have gone into Poland: what should the Soviets have done?

With benefit of hindsight and access to whatever formerly-secret documents, what is the best course of action for them?

I mean they could've not made a pact with Nazi Germany to jointly divide Eastern Europe. Like start from that.
And before anyone mentions, that includes others who made pacts with them too.
- But like what should they have done, reach out to other nations like UK and France to create an anti-nazi alliance?
- Them: "so what should they have done?"
  You: "Well I'll tell you what they shouldn't have done!"
  So, in short, you can't actually answer the question.
- I'm asking those that believe the Soviets shouldn't have entered. You seem to believe that the Soviets should, but that they should not have done war crimes. And I would agree, not that I have any knowledge of that, but I am not asking you.

Anti-communism is a fancy name for fascism.

Blackshirts and Reds is a great work that goes over this.

The black book is some hilarious stuff. They count the hypothetical unborn children of nazis. Also it counts the nazis.

Uhhh Russia invaded unoccupied Poland at the same time as Nazi Germany.

While it's inaccurate to characterize them as "victims of communism" it's full blown anti-intellectualism, and astonishingly disrespectful to the polish people, to deny their suffering under Soviet occupation.

The Soviet Union largely stuck to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few decades earlier, and did so largely to prevent the Nazis from taking all of Poland. Genuinely, what should the Soviet Union have done instead? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?
Oh, it all makes sense now, here you are denouncing Palestine Action for breaking the law in order to slow down genocide. You're actually a fascist.
- Genuinely, what should the Soviet Union have done instead? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?
  Start with not making a pact with Nazis to divide Europe imo. That's one part that was enabling the Nazi expansion.
- If this isn't a trollpost and your not getting paid for it, then I'm just baffled on how wrong someone can be regarding generic historical facts. Aside from the idea itself, that it is somehow normal and even commendable to assist foreign states against enemies without them requesting it, all the while criticizing the US for similar actions, your opinion ignores the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop secret pact.
  And for argument's sake, let's just pretend, that Soviets were of kind heart and mind and truly wanted to help and protect the Polish people from the horrifing Nazis they so clearly detested. Then why did they host a joint parade in Brest-Litovsk after having conquered Poland?? Or better yet, why did they mercilessly execute 20 000 officers in the woods of Katyn? Not to mention the fact that the Warsaw Uprising failed because the Soviets deliberatly waited for all future dissidents to be killed off, before "liberating" it.

World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR, led by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin respectively. As of 1 September 1939, the very first day of World War Two, both totalitarian regimes held joint military action against Poland. Starting from 1 September, German bombers were guided onto their targets in Poland from a radio station located in Minsk

In accordance with the secret protocol as to Hitler-Stalin Pact, also known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the new allies – Germany and the Soviet Union – were to jointly invade Poland. Red Army troops were to march into Poland three days following the Reich’s attack. Joseph Stalin, however, did not adhere to the protocol, with his troops advancing into Poland only 17 days after the Germans hit. The delay was caused by concerns over the propaganda discourse in the West, which Stalin wanted to focus on Germany solely.

The class struggle is a cornerstone of Karl Marx’s philosophy. It requires a restructuring of society in accordance with communism. When put in practice, this brought about genocide: the killing of 10 to 15 percent of a given society as well as annihilating its elites and those strata of society that were unwelcome in a communist state. For communists they stood in the way of communist rule and of harnessing entire societies under a totalitarian regime.

(1)

World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR
Oh? What date did this "coordinated attack" take place, and how was the coordination handled? Presuming coordinating the movements of two different armies for such a large scale operation would have required a lot of back and forth signaling and planning, all of which would have become public record when the soviet archives were opened.
- It's well documented indeed. You can read more here if you're interested.
The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.
When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.
Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:
If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.
Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few days prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
- Even if September 1939 should be set as the starting point for WWII (which it should not be), the Slovak Republic played a significant rôle in invading Poland with the Third Reich, and its contribution therewith was much more of a joint effort than the Red Army’s intervention in western Ukraine. It is strange that the anticommunist’s source said nothing at all about the Slovak Republic, almost as if its omission were a political decision and the Warsaw Institute has no interest in honest education. Hmmm…
  Oh, and if massacring élites were the only way to negate capitalism, it seems that the DPRK missed the memo when it disprivileged landlords.
- The Soviets absolutely did agree to invade, and claiming otherwise is historical revisionism. The source you linked tactically omits several facts that completely undermine the narrative presented, such as the fact that the Red Army coordinated with the Luftwaffe from Minsk during the Nazi invasion, that the agreed borders of the "spheres of influence" split a sovereign nation down the middle (which is impossible if Poland had remained sovereign), the joint military victory parade in Brest, etcetera.
  Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle?
  If there was a genuine concern the Soviets could have guaranteed Polish independence against the Nazis. They did not, instead they jointly agreed to invade and divide the country.
  The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.
  The UK and France declared war 2 days after Hitler invaded Poland (Hitler did not expect the UK to guarantee Poland, causing him to delay the invasion by a week while he deliberated on whether to go forward). Military spending in both the UK and France was significantly ramped up after Hitler first started showing aggression, but neither believed themselves to be ready for a war. War requires preparation, and they weren't so delusional to believe they'd be able to avoid war forever. What neither the UK nor France expected however was that Nazi Germany's war machine would ramp up significantly faster than their own.
- When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon.
  Same people excusing Soviet pact with Nazis bemoan Finland for doing the same. Where is the consistency. Not saying you are doing that but it's always interested me.
  The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis
  The article is hilarious desperate in doing handwringing and trying to sidestep the whole thing. "Well akshually it didn't invade Poland because the government had ceased to exist!" But it also claims Soviet Union couldn't have invaded Poland because Poland didn't declare war on Soviet Union. Lmao
- the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact
  Putting aside all the usual arguments that get dismissed: What were the complex and mitigating factors that required supplying the Nazi war machine with more raw materials (oil, iron, grain, cotton, rubber, et al.) after the invasion of Poland? At the same time that the famously duplicitous Americans were enacting German tariffs and shifting economic support entirely to the Allies?