• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Libs in my circles have latched onto a part where he (they claim, I haven’t watched it) says the molotov-ribbentrop pact was to protect Czechoslovakia which is pretty brainwormy. I’ve been responding to ribbentrop shit for the last few days because of the uptick in discussion about it.

        • DanicaTheRebel [comrade/them,she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          Question, but how could Hitler to turn east towards the USSR if Poland is in the way? Unless they expected the Poles and Nazis to collaborate? or did they believe he wouldn’t invade France and do the USSR next? Is there any evidence of this?

            • star_wraith [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 years ago

              This all makes sense to me, what I am trying to square is what’s the thinking in Berlin while all this is going on? Why do they make the choices they do? With the benefit of hindsight, why would Hitler ever even consider getting on Britain or France’s bad side? We know Hitler wanted his Lebensraum to the east, it seems like it would be straightforward to just hash that out with the eventual “Allies”?

              The best answer I have is, Germany and the US/UK/France ultimately were never on the same page. I think the Allies wanted Germany to invade the USSR, but kind of in the way they want the Ukraine/Russia war in the present to grind on as long as possible. They wanted to use Germany to wear down the USSR. Best case scenario for them is for both Germany and the USSR to essentially destroy each other, so you eventually get two weakened states beholden to western hegemony.

              That said, I can’t help but wonder how much the irrationality of fascism comes into play here. And I hate to ascribe irrational motives to anyone, even fascists… I have a hard time with any other explanation for a lot of the diplomatic and foreign policy choices the Nazis made.

        • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yeah I assumed something about that was wrong. I haven’t watched it. Maybe worth checking what he did say if they’re going to go on about it forever.

      • HexBroke [any, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        From memory Stalin proposed to deploy troops in Czechoslovakia if Poland give them transit and basing rights? I had thought that was before the pact was signed and when he was still trying to get Anglo and French support for a security pact

      • Barabas@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        So before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler and although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1 September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.

        Saying that Poland refusing to cede Danzig to Germany was the cause of WW2 is a bit iffy I think. Why is Danzig a legitimate target to cede while the Sudetenland was an outrage?

        It would be nice if people were less easily impressed with blood and soil propaganda.

  • GlueBear [they/them, comrade/them]@hexbear.netBanned
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    2 years ago

    Does anyone else kinda find it annoying that Reddit is mad that Putin was giving a history lesson? I mean I didn’t watch the interview (and I won’t tbh) but it seems pretty silly to go after him for providing historical context to the region.

    There are other reasons to be mad at Putin and tucker, but this wasn’t it.

    I saw posts about putting explaining the formation of the earth and the big bang on reddit. It’s silly.

    • Smeagolicious [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      2 years ago

      angery no its noooooot, harry potter is racist, xenophobic, transphobic, neoliberal propaganda with a terribly constructed world!

      Tolkien’s work on the other hand is racist, xenophobic, christo-monarchist propaganda with a well constructed world!

      … and i kinda like it so you’ll find that makes it cool and good 😎

        • Mardoniush [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yeah Tolkien felt bad about his characterisation of the Orcs, and despite it clearly having a gentry much of the Shire (Tolkiens ideal society) is appealing to more Agrarian minded Socialists.

          And even Aragorn is far from an entirely noble figure, the work is never completely comfortable with an absolute monarch divinely chosen, even a good and non-intervening one.

          He’s a utopian Catholic basically, sure he wrongly accepts the concept of class collaboration, but that’s because he believes (also wrongly) that such a society can be founded on compassion and mutual co operation, resulting in the class differences slowly fading away.

          • star_wraith [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            I deeply love LotR but I re-read the trilogy a year ago for the first time as a leftist and as much as I hate to admit it, there’s definitely racism in the book. I don’t think Tolkien was consciously white supremacist or anything, but he was a product of his place and time, and early 20th century England was dripping with chauvinism towards non-white people in that time. He may have felt bad about portraying the orcs as one-dimensional but afaik he never regretted portraying the “evil men” in explicitly orientalist or brown terms.

            But I definitely think Tolkien’s socio-political views are wildly contradictory. As much as he seems to love monarchy, afaik he never spoke out in favor of actual monarchs like Elizabeth II having any real power.

            • anarchoilluminati [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              2 years ago

              Just to be upfront, I’m a huge Tolkienite and have loved Tolkien since I was a little kid before the movies even came out, so I’m biased. And I’m having a rough night so I may not express this as eloquently and I’m not going to find sources at the moment.

              But, I don’t think Tolkien’s work is racist the way people say and I do believe his, let’s say, stances are years ahead of Rowling despite the fact that he was born the better part of a century earlier and was raised a White man in apartheid South Africa.

              That being said, he isn’t perfect or a Communist. And if you take Lord of the Rings as book by itself, then I can see how you would mostly draw that conclusion you mention. That it’s racist and treats the White, Western men as the inherently “Good” men who fight the “evil” hordes of Black and Brown men. But, honestly, you get a much fuller picture if you also read other supporting literature, The Silmarillion as well as The History of Middle-earth, and so on, as well as his personal letters. There is a lot of humanizing and sympathy that happens towards the Haradrim and Men of Rhûn that is pretty tight. And even with Orcs, but I won’t get into that.

              There is a whole history of how the Men of the West, Aragorn’s ancestors, not only were made so evil and corrupt by following Sauron themselves that they dared go to war with the fucking gods, which almost brought about their own utter annihilation, but also that they literally colonized, enslaved, pillaged, and murdered the indigenous population. This history of conflict between Men (“humans”) caused so much hatred and resentment towards the West that when Sauron eventually came along as their enemy who promised to bring victory over them that the Southrons and Easterlings naturally allied with Sauron. Not because they were inherently evil but because of the material history. This only later developed into cults of worship, but the same Men of the West made Sauron-influenced cults of worship too so that is not unique either. So, Men of the West aren’t in any way the inherently good men of the entire story—nor are Elves for that matter, they have a severely fucked history that is not discussed in Lord of the Rings. It just doesn’t get brought up as deeply so people just get this Good v. Bad surface level view in that one book, similar to how taken by itself The Hobbit is just a fairytale but is very different when contextualized in its history. And I just see it as Men of the West already having had their own fall to Sauron’s evil and now, because of their own actions, this same evil has passed to the Southrons and the Easterlings. The Men of the West are fighting Sauron, but they are not necessarily fighting the other Men—it’s not like there is an attempt at genocide after Sauron is defeated. There is an understanding that Sauron is the true evil and manipulating the other Men—again, Sauron also corrupted the Men of the West and other races and they are constantly fighting the temptation to go back to him so it is not like they are totally above these ‘evil’ men just for not being under Sauron’s sway this time. And even in Lord of the Rings itself you already at least see one humanizing moment with Sam when he and Frodo are in Ithilien and one of the Haradrim falls dead off the Mûmakil (Oliphaunt) and Sam wonders

              what the man’s name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace.

      • Hello_Kitty_enjoyer [none/use name]@hexbear.netBanned
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        no its noooooot, harry potter is racist, xenophobic, transphobic, neoliberal propaganda with a terribly constructed world!

        Tolkien’s work on the other hand is racist, xenophobic, christo-monarchist propaganda with a well constructed world!

        oh damn I didn’t know that

        I just meant it along the lines of them both revolving around a bunch of mayos in a meadow with random magical crap happening

    • GalaxyBrain [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ll explain why you’re wrong later. It’d been a long day.i need to make a Tolkien copypasta for myself sometime so I don’t have to repeat myself manually every time this weak shit comes up