Communists absolutely defend Jewish peoples, Zionism is anti-semitic, especially anti-Yiddish. We also don’t “simp for authoritarian regimes,” we support socialist systems where the working classes hold the authority in society, rather than capitalists. None of this is “simping,” I support worker-run structures because it’s more equitable and democratic.

In no way shape or form Ukraine is a genocide. By using that term for both Palestine and Ukraine you are just demeaning the word, and actually helping the propaganda against Palestine.

Ukraine is defending its sovereignty, and it is experiencing a national aggression by Russia, but what Israel is doing to Gaza is in a different sphere.

Russia is, in fact, not enacting genocide on Ukrainians. It’s carrying out an invasion which we can condemn, but calling every conflict a genocide is actually a form of genocide denial, because it minimizes the horrors of actual genocides.

If you want to see criticism of Russia in Hexbear (my main instance), yesterday there was a post asking for peoples’ opinions on Putin. Here’s mine so you can see how much we “love the Russian government”. You may be surprised to see that most comments and upvotes are highly critical of the contemporary Russian government.

The communists spent the decade prior to World War II 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 decades 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.

The communists were responsible for 80% of the total Nazi casualties. The communists beat the Nazis.

I’m gonna paste a comment that I wrote some time ago responding to the whole “Soviets sided with the Nazis” lie that is often propagated on Lemmy. Feel free to respond to it, I’d love to engage with you in its contents:

The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.” Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn’t want to. By the logic of “invading Poland” being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.

As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won’t find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.

The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of nowadays when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:

“Polish” territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:

The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?

Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.

All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:

“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this

“B-b-but my side virtuous (in all ways, and can do no wrong), while their side ignoramus (everything they do is because they are poopy-heads)!”

I wish I could add /s here but a good half the population on earth seems to hold to this as an invariant position, solidarity in the face of all obstacles, i.e. the Nazi bar effect.

Case in point: who doesn’t love it when a religious institution offers food and shelter and medical care to the needy, or counsels people to forgive, laying down their burdens and seek therapy to thereby travel lighter through the world? It is the diddling kids part that for some strange reason (/s on this one) people tend to get upset?

Since we were talking about Zionism here, I will mention that Deuteronomy 13:5 (in the Torah, part of the Old Testament for Christian and Muslim and offshoot religious branches such as Mormonism) provides an EXTREMELY stern warning about those who would misuse their authority to lead people astray.

TLDR: intolerance paradox - if you tolerate the intolerant, it corrupts the entire system, giving it a bad reputation when people see the worst excesses and extrapolate that to infer the properties of the whole. e.g. Reddit is fascist, hence we did not stay and put up with it but rather moved here.

They are implying that ml instances are no less egregious about the types of bad content they allow, even if the content itself is different

They are wrong.

They fully support the Russian invasion

wut? Even lemmygrad.ml doesn’t - their support of the Russian Federation’s invasion has always been critical, not full. Just like their support for Hamas is critical - it’s extremely obvious that neither the capitalist-run RF nor the Islamist Hamas are groups they agree with at all.

(I am not a campist, I’m simply explaining the campist concept of “critical support”)

There is no genocide in Ukraine. Ukranians are Russians.

They fully support the Russian invasion and genocide of Ukraine though, hence the hypocrisy.

Did you know that inventing “genocides” based on perceived vibes and presenting them as equivalent to extremely real, well-documented, and universally agreed upon actual genocides is a form of genocide denial? Liberals such as yourself have been doing the work of fascists like this for a long time, this type of Holocaust denial is called “double genocide theory”.

It just shows how some people know jack shit and still throw their opinions around LMAO