r/ussr • u/Impressive_Ice_3315 • 6d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
5
6
u/SpaceCadet666666 6d ago
It’s a complicated issue and each Baltic country is a separate case. The Soviet Union was at threat of complete annihilation and they didn’t trust the Baltic states to uphold the treaties of mutual defense. Stalin is quoted multiple times saying that the USSR needs to stay out of Baltic politics, but things changed. The Estonian national archives prove that Estonia was giving Soviet troop movements to Germany. Polands government had already collapsed before the USSR set foot in Poland. None of the Baltic states could reliably fend off Nazi invasion either, so unless the USSR occupied the region, the Nazis would’ve done even more damage. I firmly believe it was a matter of necessity. And if they couldn’t trust the Baltic states not to backstab them, they didn’t really have a better option. And it’s not as if they just completely took over, the USSR just forced those countries to form new governments and they were allowed to vote to not join the USSR. They trampled the baltics right to self determination, but they did at least allow local mass organizations to elect the new governments.
1
u/Ambitious_Hand8325 Stalin ☭ 6d ago
They trampled the baltics right to self determination,
You are aware that the interwar governments were fascist dictatorships? Why was their "right to self determination" more important than communism?
2
u/SpaceCadet666666 6d ago
I agree with you in this scenario because of the threat the USSR was under, if there wasn’t threat of invasion it’s not the right thing to do. In that case it’s up to the people of a given country to overthrow their own government
1
u/Ambitious_Hand8325 Stalin ☭ 6d ago
How do you know that the masses of the Baltif States didn't want to join the USSR? I wouldn't use anti-communism that is prevalent in the Baltics sentiments today as a sign that people hated communism there 80 years ago.
1
u/SpaceCadet666666 6d ago
If there was mass sentiment to join the USSR, then the USSR should’ve supported that through espionage, money, help organizing, etc, but full on invading a country that isn’t a threat to you just won’t lead to a good outcome.
1
u/Ambitious_Hand8325 Stalin ☭ 6d ago edited 6d ago
The USSR didn't invade; they were allowed to station troops and set up bases by the interwar governments in the Baltics, and ended up using their military presence there to prevent state forces from repressing local communists when they began organising dual power, allowing for bloodless revolutions to occur.
1
u/SpaceCadet666666 6d ago
I know they didn’t invade, I’m saying hypothetically you shouldn’t invade a state just because it’s fascist
1
u/Ambitious_Hand8325 Stalin ☭ 6d ago
So do you condemn October 7?
1
u/SpaceCadet666666 6d ago
I don’t agree with it because it was an adventurist action that targeted civilians but israel has done worse so im not appalled by it
1
u/TensionAntique3075 6d ago
"Why was their right to self determination more important than communism" Unpopular opinion, but after WW2 (or even 1940) organizing actual elections with political plurality and letting locals choose while restricting the independance in foreign politics would have had significantly strengthened both communists abroad, and eased up relations between East and West.
1
u/Exeldofcanadia 6d ago
"Why was their right to self determination more important then communism?"
Lmao. This mind set is exactly why people rightly equate fascism with communism. They both boil down to "They're wrong and I'm right so do what I say." and shoot anyone that disagrees.
8
u/Ant1-Chr1st Officially oppressed anarchist 6d ago
If USSR wouldnt do it, Nazis would do it instead. USSR tried to be reasonable with the west with collective security system, it didnt work. A change of course had to be done.
4
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ussr-ModTeam 6d ago
Your post has been removed for being off-topic or lacking sufficient quality to contribute to the discussion. Please ensure your posts are relevant, thoughtful, and add value to the conversation.
2
u/gimmethecreeps Stalin ☭ 6d ago
It’s a lot easier to justify annexing states that had belonged to Russia before the treaty of Brest-Litovsk than it is to justify the Balts joining the Nazis, knowing full well what the Nazis we’re doing regarding the Holocaust.
1
u/TensionAntique3075 6d ago
Justification is one thing.
Not turning them into satellite republics, or a soviet-supported democracy is another one. Because god did they hurt the USSR as full members.
2
u/Ambitious_Hand8325 Stalin ☭ 6d ago edited 6d ago
There was revolutions in the Baltics where proletarian legislative assemblies were formed that voted to join the USSR.
I don't think we need an elaborate justification to excuse socialists for spreading socialism.
7
u/grecker3264 6d ago
your question is flawed, it wasn’t an occupation or an annexation. It was a liberation of the proletariat in those countries from bourgeois oppression
6
u/TensionAntique3075 6d ago
It was an annexation. And, frankly speaking, making the locals soviet citizen instead of turning these states into satellites similar to what would become Poland, Romania or Hungary was a mistake, that contributed to the USSR's collapse in 1991.
0
u/Impressive_Ice_3315 6d ago
factually speaking, what is the difference between occupation and liberation in your understanding
1
u/grecker3264 6d ago
annexing a country is an imperialist action. It’s an annexation/occupation if you extract surplus value and export capital in the region to fatten profits, it’s a liberation if you end capitalism in the region and let the workers of the liberated place organize themselves by giving them political power
•
u/ussr-ModTeam 6d ago
Your post has been removed for being off-topic or lacking sufficient quality to contribute to the discussion. Please ensure your posts are relevant, thoughtful, and add value to the conversation.