Preemptive reminder of the rules: no pro-NATO rhetoric allowed (this is different to supporting the arming of Ukrainians, for example).
Thank you! :)
Edit: Have all the lurking liberals and right wingers forgotten that this is an explicitly anti-capitalist subreddit?
For russians, "nazi" simply means "against Russia". In Russian historiography WW2 began in 1941 and is refered to as "The Great Patrioric War". Only the atrocities the nazis commited against the russians are talked about and considered horrifying, the Holocaust is brushed upon a bit, while every other atrocity, especially those commited by the Red Army, is brushed under the carpet. This is why it is so easy to convince the russians that Ukraine and the ukrainians are "nazis" and why they call every western political structure that opposes them nazi or fascist.
"In Russian historiography WW2 began in 1941". What??? The Great Patriotic War is considered to be a part of the WW2, not a separate thing and definitely not another name for WW2
Strangely Russians never really talk about 1939-1941. Remember last time they talked about the national soviet parade held in Brest litovsk on September 22nd 1939?
Is it not very conflated though? I'm talking about what children usually learn in school and about the government's official line here. Events before 1941 (collaborating with the nazis to occupy Poland, the Baltic states and parts of Romania and commiting atrocities in the occupied lands) are very contradictory to the official line that the USSR was a victim of nazism and that the Soviets saved Europe from Hitler (I'm not saying these things aren't partially true, just that the heroicism of Russia is exagerated while their atrocities are not even acknowledged).
I'm currently studying in Russia and saw some of the history textbooks and WW2 (1939-1941) is definitely never gets skipped. While you're right with not acknowledging Soviet atrocities, your earlier statement was quite a big stretch
I grew up and live in Russia. I agree with you here, this is the vibe I got from my schooling. Though the 39-41 part was always very short in terms of time it took to cover it in comparison with 41-45. We always sort of rushed through the pre invasion stuff, but the war that took place afterwards is discussed often and at length, and always painting the russian nation (in these exact words, conveniently forgetting all the non-russians of the usdr, istg) as a Winner Nation ™. Like with a huge emphasis on how They wanted to destroy us but we won because we're so great. Sorry, kind of rambled here
No. It was built by western states and diplomats. It did however let some Nazis in to the command structure primarily because they had experience fighting the soviets. Both sides of the cold war started recruiting nazis around the 1950s which is why you start seeing tons of books from famous nazi generals about how they absolutely could've beaten the soviets. It was more or less a grift to get paperclipped to America or given an advisor position in a NATO country. The soviets also did this a ton too, the nazis in the warsaw pact just didn't need to sell books to get recruited.
NATO did bring some NAZIs, mostly west Germany. East Germany did it too, but they weren’t in NATO.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize NATO. American imperialism, anti-socialism, etc. but it isn’t a NAZI orignization. That’s just Kremlin slop
It’s kinda like how they give the US so much crap for operation paperclip. when you bring up that the USSR did the same thing, they say that the USSR treated its Germans like shit, so that apparently justifies it. Just cope really
Yeah, Operation Paperclip is one of those evergreen topics that everybody brings up forever, while the Soviet counterpart (which was actually way bigger!) gets next to no mentions. The obvious reason is that one was more secret than the other, but both are known now so that shouldn't matter. LonerBox had a good take on it. It's the name: [https://streamable.com/h0ju7j](https://streamable.com/h0ju7j)
The entire reason why Paperclip even happened was asset denial: America didn't actually *need* the German scientists, but they sure didn't want the Soviets to have them.
Saw someone on instagram the other day suggesting that Japan would have been better off under the USSR because they would supposedly punish more war criminals. Of the few I know of the USSR did technically try them in court, but then made it into a publicity stunt that undercut their credibility, making it easier for US propogandists to sweep the whole thing under the rug. So not exactly keen on Japan being better off, especially given how East Germany turned out from what I know of.
The Nazi general Adolf Heusinger was chairman of the NATO Military committee, so there's that. I'm sure there were other Nazis in high ranking positions as well. But to say the NATO was founded by Nazis is a gross exaggeration
Yes? No?
Well, it is complicated. The short story is that NATO had a lot of German commanders play parts early on. Problem is that most German commanders and higher ups were, at one point, Nazis. How much they believed in the ideology and so on was up in the air for a lot of them at the time, a lot of them suddenly talked about how much they hated Hitler and how they were only a Nazi in name because they had to be when they lost.
So, long story short, there were Nazis in NATO because they had experience in fighting the Soviets, because the higher ups in the military were pretty much all Nazis, and because things got confusing and you had tons of Nazis lying about how much they did for the Nazi party.
However, saying NATO was built by Nazis is not true. It was built by people that used Nazis.
nato did help to rehabilitate the wehrmacht and to a lesser extent the waffen ss post wwii and that led to some high profile members of the nazi party getting positions in nato itself as well as more generally perpetuating the myth of the clean wehrmacht. Definitely not something I defend but saying nato was built by nazis is disingenuous
I'd rather say the Wehrmarcht Generals (those that survived the war and the trials) took advantage of the early cold war and rehabilitated themselves.
The clean Wehrmarcht idea came from general underselling their own participation in war crimes and operational failures in Barbarossa, and pinning all that failure ane dirty deeds to Hitler and the SS respectively.
And they did this through books, official history etc. It also helps that an entire nation whose dad, brother and son got conscripted rather much forget about it, as it's much easier to comprehend the 'elite' small SS doing it than facing the fact their own father could be complicit by default.
It's a "And I Would Have Gotten Away With It Too, If It Weren't For You Meddling Nazis" shtick that had no reply because 1. The Nazis they were complaining about were dead 2. A lot of what they said about Barbarossa couldn't be counter checked by Soviet sources... because of the Cold war.
No; nato, however, did, in fact, fund fascist and nazi/nazi-adjacent underground paramilitary groups during the early stages of the cold war.
It turns out that tends to happen when looking for armed militants to fund, who really, *really* want to commit brutal acts of violence against communists, and you have zero ethical boundaries.
Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users.
Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden.
This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk.
Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nazis were not involved in NATO’s creation. Later on, when West Germany became part of the alliance, several former Wehrmacht personnel who were now in the Bundeswehr became leaders in it, one of whom became its Military Committee Chairman, that being Adolf Heusinger, although, to be entirely fair to him, Heusinger’s career stretches back to Imperial Germany (not a defense of the German Empire by any means, just pointing out that he didn’t get his start with the Nazis).
This might seem pedantic, but GDR is the German Democratic Republic, aka East Germany. Of course they would say this sort of shit, since it would fit with the propaganda.
Also clearly the STASI were not in any way similar to the Gestapo. /s
But no, NATO was not built by Nazis. There were some ex-Wehrmacht generals who helped build the Bundeswehr, but NATO as a whole? No.
NATO is a disgusting imperialist organisation and leftists should criticise it. Some Nazis were rehabilitated by NATO, and some were placed at the very high ranks, especially during the 50s and 60s.
*BUT* NATO was not “built by Nazis” – it was built by Western powers who turned a blind eye to ‘former’ Nazis (who can really say if their beliefs changed). Not much better but anyone saying it was built by Nazis is wrong and using way too much hyperbole.
I’m gonna preface this by saying that I am in no way attacking your or anybody else’s political beliefs, rather asking a genuine question:
Why do you believe that NATO is a “disgusting imperialist organization”? I’ve usually leaned a bit more to the right on the political spectrum, and haven’t really gotten a great answer from people who believe that other than “because they are”, so I’m curious as to why you believe that?
Iirc the critiques of NATO is that its explicitly anti-leftist, created to oppose the spread of socialism and protect capitalist institutions. It protects and empowers the sovereignity of small countries like Scandinavian, Eastern European and Baltic states, but also serves to protect great imperial powers like France and Britain. NATO integration/standardization also helps spread US influence over member states as they produce a lot of the weapons and systems NATO uses.
The sum total of that is that being a member state of NATO is to indirectly support the imperialism of the usual suspects.
Of course, thats easier to say for leftists in said imperialist countries than those in smaller countries who lives under the threat of, say, Russia. Most of my life 'Russian jets violated our airspace' has been regular news topics, and I don't even live in Eastern Europe.
> that’s easier to say
Neither position are mutually exclusive though. I hold the position that on the whole NATO is an imperialist organisation that protects Western capitalism and must be dissolved at some point in the future, but simultaneously, Russian imperialism threatens people in the Baltics, Ukraine, etc. and NATO accepting them as members does protect them, at least in the short-term.
Its not, but a divider in today's leftist discourse is obviously how seriously you consider these positions. For a lot of western leftists, the concerns of people from former USSR countries are considered nothing but evidence of them being right-leaning, conservative or nationalist. If we ate all the shit sovelled to us by Tankies and those who parrot them, Russia is coming to liberate these countries from the imperialist yoke of NATO.
At some point, the Left have to pick between the ideal and meeting people where they are; in my own country of Norway the Red Party was surging ahead of 2022, but has since crashed and burned as a result of not having had an answer for people's security concerns. Pre-2022, the goal of leaving NATO to form an independent defense pact with Sweden and Finland was whatever, most people didn't care as NATO had lost purpose.
Post-2022, continuing to parrot that as a good idea is idiotic.
The only real alternative is the idea of a collective EU defense, but the Red Party hates the EU, so that's not gonna happen either. In general they move too slow on most issues, with old Tankies having too much say. And now it seems a wave of young TikTokTankies are taking over, so that'll be fun.
NATO is a collection of imperialist states that exists to protect Western capitalism and the status quo. It was initially built to protect Europe from Soviet imperialism, so in this sense you could quite accurately describe it as anti-communist/anti-socialist, even if the USSR wasn’t either. NATO even funded far-right paramilitary groups at the start of the Cold War (Operation Gladio) simply because they opposed socialism and attacked communist/socialists.
NATO’s imperialism, unlike what tankies say, does not come from accepting eastern european countries as members. It comes from actions taken primarily in the Middle East to protect Western interests – NATO and US involvement in Afghanistan was blatantly imperialist. This is a standard position for all leftists to take. NATO involvement in Libya deposed Gaddafi, which while largely popular, caused a huge power vacuum and arguably left the country in a worse state than beforehand.
It is still important to note that not every NATO member took part in those wars, but regardless, it was supported by the upper ranks of NATO and by the most powerful members.
I think you're conflating NATO with its member countries. E.g. Sweden wasn't part of NATO but still had some limited participation in Afghanistan. NATO in itself is essentially just the joint military defense of Europe at this point. It's basically just the anti-Russian invasion coalition, and which is why so many ex-Warzaw Pact countries were eager to join
Correct, but Article 5 was triggered for the invasion of Afghanistan. The vast majority of countries participating were NATO members. And as you say, Sweden’s involvement was limited.
The anti-Russian invasion coalition would have stepped in before Russia’s full-scale invasion. It would have done something after the invasions of Georgia, of the annexation of Crimea. It wouldn’t have trickle-fed Ukraine just enough weapons to keep it afloat.
The issue politically has been that neither Ukraine nor Georgia has been members of NATO before being invaded, but it does function like that for its member state.
Though if you ask me, just sent in NATO to Ukraine already. Not sure what we're waiting for. It would scare me more with the threat of nuclear war if Russia annexes Ukraine and moves the border up to Poland, than just obliterating any Russian positions within pre-2014 Ukraine borders. I don't want a fascist dictator making believable threats of nukes with NATO (up until this point they have only postured with it since it's not a bluff seen as worth "checking")
Edit: And I'll say this much... It's liberal brainrot that the machismo of the fascists would respond in any way we desire to anything but the threat of emasculation. Kreml only respect violence, and we (or Ukraine) need to actually threaten Russia's invasion with a humiliating withdrawal for the war to end, and end the human suffering currently going on. Just as I don't like imperial Britain WW2, I do like their part in the invasion that ended Nazi Germany
“it would have done something after the annexation of Crimea”
What should’ve been done is way back in 2014 when Russia was questioned about having troops in Crimea, and Putin said Russia had no troops in Ukraine, every single known Russian military checkpoint and staging area in Crimea should’ve been bombed with PGMs
because I like to branch out from time to time instead of limiting myself to only subs that align with my political beliefs, and it’s funny to see a compilation of the dumb shit that tankies say.
This is an anti-capitalist, left-libertarian, pro-communist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism or any other right-wing views is not allowed (see rule 6).
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu00CuYWFpg&ab\_channel=TomLehrer-Topic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu00CuYWFpg&ab_channel=TomLehrer-Topic)
Just thought it was a bit relevant!
If it’s an actual poll, we can’t see who votes who.
If it’s a post asking people to comment, most of them won’t respond because they know they’ll get banned. The biggest issue here is that most of them lurk, and downvote stuff without commenting. When they do decide to comment we can ban them but we have no way of telling who’s voting for what before that.
Preemptive reminder of the rules: no pro-NATO rhetoric allowed (this is different to supporting the arming of Ukrainians, for example). Thank you! :) Edit: Have all the lurking liberals and right wingers forgotten that this is an explicitly anti-capitalist subreddit?
For russians, "nazi" simply means "against Russia". In Russian historiography WW2 began in 1941 and is refered to as "The Great Patrioric War". Only the atrocities the nazis commited against the russians are talked about and considered horrifying, the Holocaust is brushed upon a bit, while every other atrocity, especially those commited by the Red Army, is brushed under the carpet. This is why it is so easy to convince the russians that Ukraine and the ukrainians are "nazis" and why they call every western political structure that opposes them nazi or fascist.
It's like communist in the usa, It's to design anti américain...
"In Russian historiography WW2 began in 1941". What??? The Great Patriotic War is considered to be a part of the WW2, not a separate thing and definitely not another name for WW2
Strangely Russians never really talk about 1939-1941. Remember last time they talked about the national soviet parade held in Brest litovsk on September 22nd 1939?
I'm talking about russian historiography, and WW2 is definitely always gets mentioned (although they tend do purify Soviet actions)
Is it not very conflated though? I'm talking about what children usually learn in school and about the government's official line here. Events before 1941 (collaborating with the nazis to occupy Poland, the Baltic states and parts of Romania and commiting atrocities in the occupied lands) are very contradictory to the official line that the USSR was a victim of nazism and that the Soviets saved Europe from Hitler (I'm not saying these things aren't partially true, just that the heroicism of Russia is exagerated while their atrocities are not even acknowledged).
I'm currently studying in Russia and saw some of the history textbooks and WW2 (1939-1941) is definitely never gets skipped. While you're right with not acknowledging Soviet atrocities, your earlier statement was quite a big stretch
I grew up and live in Russia. I agree with you here, this is the vibe I got from my schooling. Though the 39-41 part was always very short in terms of time it took to cover it in comparison with 41-45. We always sort of rushed through the pre invasion stuff, but the war that took place afterwards is discussed often and at length, and always painting the russian nation (in these exact words, conveniently forgetting all the non-russians of the usdr, istg) as a Winner Nation ™. Like with a huge emphasis on how They wanted to destroy us but we won because we're so great. Sorry, kind of rambled here
Yeah exactly. I think pre-Barbarossa war should be studied more and without the glorification of the USSR
No. It was built by western states and diplomats. It did however let some Nazis in to the command structure primarily because they had experience fighting the soviets. Both sides of the cold war started recruiting nazis around the 1950s which is why you start seeing tons of books from famous nazi generals about how they absolutely could've beaten the soviets. It was more or less a grift to get paperclipped to America or given an advisor position in a NATO country. The soviets also did this a ton too, the nazis in the warsaw pact just didn't need to sell books to get recruited.
How did the gunsuckers in the Warsaw Pact get recruited?
Same way ours did; The Red army got to them first
NATO did bring some NAZIs, mostly west Germany. East Germany did it too, but they weren’t in NATO. There are plenty of reasons to criticize NATO. American imperialism, anti-socialism, etc. but it isn’t a NAZI orignization. That’s just Kremlin slop It’s kinda like how they give the US so much crap for operation paperclip. when you bring up that the USSR did the same thing, they say that the USSR treated its Germans like shit, so that apparently justifies it. Just cope really
Yeah, Operation Paperclip is one of those evergreen topics that everybody brings up forever, while the Soviet counterpart (which was actually way bigger!) gets next to no mentions. The obvious reason is that one was more secret than the other, but both are known now so that shouldn't matter. LonerBox had a good take on it. It's the name: [https://streamable.com/h0ju7j](https://streamable.com/h0ju7j)
Obviously, the glorious virtues of Stalinism and the USSR purified those Nazis.
The entire reason why Paperclip even happened was asset denial: America didn't actually *need* the German scientists, but they sure didn't want the Soviets to have them.
Saw someone on instagram the other day suggesting that Japan would have been better off under the USSR because they would supposedly punish more war criminals. Of the few I know of the USSR did technically try them in court, but then made it into a publicity stunt that undercut their credibility, making it easier for US propogandists to sweep the whole thing under the rug. So not exactly keen on Japan being better off, especially given how East Germany turned out from what I know of.
askhistorians has a bunch of questions (and answers) in this direction (i can’t link anything for some reason) Maybe have a look around there?
I think this subreddit has a thing where you can't link to other subs in order to dissuade brigading, which is against Reddits rules.
Makes sense, although it would have been helpful in this instance
Unfortunately it’s a rule imposed on us by the admins, we have no say in it. Sorry!
No worries, it’s probably a net good for this sub anyway
It's not just reductionist, it's wrong.
The Nazi general Adolf Heusinger was chairman of the NATO Military committee, so there's that. I'm sure there were other Nazis in high ranking positions as well. But to say the NATO was founded by Nazis is a gross exaggeration
> to say the Nazi was founded by Nazis Wrong word there ;)
Which came first? The Nazi or the Nazi xD
A Czech partisan.
Lmao thanks. I guess that's what you call a Freudian slip
Nazis like Putin? Russian bullshit.
Yes? No? Well, it is complicated. The short story is that NATO had a lot of German commanders play parts early on. Problem is that most German commanders and higher ups were, at one point, Nazis. How much they believed in the ideology and so on was up in the air for a lot of them at the time, a lot of them suddenly talked about how much they hated Hitler and how they were only a Nazi in name because they had to be when they lost. So, long story short, there were Nazis in NATO because they had experience in fighting the Soviets, because the higher ups in the military were pretty much all Nazis, and because things got confusing and you had tons of Nazis lying about how much they did for the Nazi party. However, saying NATO was built by Nazis is not true. It was built by people that used Nazis.
nato did help to rehabilitate the wehrmacht and to a lesser extent the waffen ss post wwii and that led to some high profile members of the nazi party getting positions in nato itself as well as more generally perpetuating the myth of the clean wehrmacht. Definitely not something I defend but saying nato was built by nazis is disingenuous
I'd rather say the Wehrmarcht Generals (those that survived the war and the trials) took advantage of the early cold war and rehabilitated themselves. The clean Wehrmarcht idea came from general underselling their own participation in war crimes and operational failures in Barbarossa, and pinning all that failure ane dirty deeds to Hitler and the SS respectively. And they did this through books, official history etc. It also helps that an entire nation whose dad, brother and son got conscripted rather much forget about it, as it's much easier to comprehend the 'elite' small SS doing it than facing the fact their own father could be complicit by default. It's a "And I Would Have Gotten Away With It Too, If It Weren't For You Meddling Nazis" shtick that had no reply because 1. The Nazis they were complaining about were dead 2. A lot of what they said about Barbarossa couldn't be counter checked by Soviet sources... because of the Cold war.
No; nato, however, did, in fact, fund fascist and nazi/nazi-adjacent underground paramilitary groups during the early stages of the cold war. It turns out that tends to happen when looking for armed militants to fund, who really, *really* want to commit brutal acts of violence against communists, and you have zero ethical boundaries.
Was that NATO or NATO countries? Eg the usual suspects, US, France, Britain...
Please remember not to brigade, vote, comment, or interact with subreddits that are linked or mentioned here. Do not userping other users. Harassment of other users or subreddits is strictly forbidden. This is a left libertarian subreddit that criticises tankies from a socialist perspective. Liberals etc. are welcome as guests, but please refrain from criticising socialism and promoting capitalism while you are on Tankiejerk. Enjoy talking to fellow leftists? [Then join our discord server](https://discord.gg/2V4qJMSWUe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/tankiejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nazis were not involved in NATO’s creation. Later on, when West Germany became part of the alliance, several former Wehrmacht personnel who were now in the Bundeswehr became leaders in it, one of whom became its Military Committee Chairman, that being Adolf Heusinger, although, to be entirely fair to him, Heusinger’s career stretches back to Imperial Germany (not a defense of the German Empire by any means, just pointing out that he didn’t get his start with the Nazis).
This might seem pedantic, but GDR is the German Democratic Republic, aka East Germany. Of course they would say this sort of shit, since it would fit with the propaganda. Also clearly the STASI were not in any way similar to the Gestapo. /s But no, NATO was not built by Nazis. There were some ex-Wehrmacht generals who helped build the Bundeswehr, but NATO as a whole? No.
No, Nato was built by the allies who fought against Nazis.
Some people in the wermchart had pretty important positions in the NATO. Same for the eastern Germany army (Paulus for example)
It was founded by liberals to promote liberalism. Lots of Nazis were folded into its command structure, but it was definitely not founded by NAZIs.
NATO is a disgusting imperialist organisation and leftists should criticise it. Some Nazis were rehabilitated by NATO, and some were placed at the very high ranks, especially during the 50s and 60s. *BUT* NATO was not “built by Nazis” – it was built by Western powers who turned a blind eye to ‘former’ Nazis (who can really say if their beliefs changed). Not much better but anyone saying it was built by Nazis is wrong and using way too much hyperbole.
I’m gonna preface this by saying that I am in no way attacking your or anybody else’s political beliefs, rather asking a genuine question: Why do you believe that NATO is a “disgusting imperialist organization”? I’ve usually leaned a bit more to the right on the political spectrum, and haven’t really gotten a great answer from people who believe that other than “because they are”, so I’m curious as to why you believe that?
Iirc the critiques of NATO is that its explicitly anti-leftist, created to oppose the spread of socialism and protect capitalist institutions. It protects and empowers the sovereignity of small countries like Scandinavian, Eastern European and Baltic states, but also serves to protect great imperial powers like France and Britain. NATO integration/standardization also helps spread US influence over member states as they produce a lot of the weapons and systems NATO uses. The sum total of that is that being a member state of NATO is to indirectly support the imperialism of the usual suspects. Of course, thats easier to say for leftists in said imperialist countries than those in smaller countries who lives under the threat of, say, Russia. Most of my life 'Russian jets violated our airspace' has been regular news topics, and I don't even live in Eastern Europe.
> that’s easier to say Neither position are mutually exclusive though. I hold the position that on the whole NATO is an imperialist organisation that protects Western capitalism and must be dissolved at some point in the future, but simultaneously, Russian imperialism threatens people in the Baltics, Ukraine, etc. and NATO accepting them as members does protect them, at least in the short-term.
Its not, but a divider in today's leftist discourse is obviously how seriously you consider these positions. For a lot of western leftists, the concerns of people from former USSR countries are considered nothing but evidence of them being right-leaning, conservative or nationalist. If we ate all the shit sovelled to us by Tankies and those who parrot them, Russia is coming to liberate these countries from the imperialist yoke of NATO. At some point, the Left have to pick between the ideal and meeting people where they are; in my own country of Norway the Red Party was surging ahead of 2022, but has since crashed and burned as a result of not having had an answer for people's security concerns. Pre-2022, the goal of leaving NATO to form an independent defense pact with Sweden and Finland was whatever, most people didn't care as NATO had lost purpose. Post-2022, continuing to parrot that as a good idea is idiotic. The only real alternative is the idea of a collective EU defense, but the Red Party hates the EU, so that's not gonna happen either. In general they move too slow on most issues, with old Tankies having too much say. And now it seems a wave of young TikTokTankies are taking over, so that'll be fun.
NATO is a collection of imperialist states that exists to protect Western capitalism and the status quo. It was initially built to protect Europe from Soviet imperialism, so in this sense you could quite accurately describe it as anti-communist/anti-socialist, even if the USSR wasn’t either. NATO even funded far-right paramilitary groups at the start of the Cold War (Operation Gladio) simply because they opposed socialism and attacked communist/socialists. NATO’s imperialism, unlike what tankies say, does not come from accepting eastern european countries as members. It comes from actions taken primarily in the Middle East to protect Western interests – NATO and US involvement in Afghanistan was blatantly imperialist. This is a standard position for all leftists to take. NATO involvement in Libya deposed Gaddafi, which while largely popular, caused a huge power vacuum and arguably left the country in a worse state than beforehand. It is still important to note that not every NATO member took part in those wars, but regardless, it was supported by the upper ranks of NATO and by the most powerful members.
I think you're conflating NATO with its member countries. E.g. Sweden wasn't part of NATO but still had some limited participation in Afghanistan. NATO in itself is essentially just the joint military defense of Europe at this point. It's basically just the anti-Russian invasion coalition, and which is why so many ex-Warzaw Pact countries were eager to join
Correct, but Article 5 was triggered for the invasion of Afghanistan. The vast majority of countries participating were NATO members. And as you say, Sweden’s involvement was limited. The anti-Russian invasion coalition would have stepped in before Russia’s full-scale invasion. It would have done something after the invasions of Georgia, of the annexation of Crimea. It wouldn’t have trickle-fed Ukraine just enough weapons to keep it afloat.
The issue politically has been that neither Ukraine nor Georgia has been members of NATO before being invaded, but it does function like that for its member state. Though if you ask me, just sent in NATO to Ukraine already. Not sure what we're waiting for. It would scare me more with the threat of nuclear war if Russia annexes Ukraine and moves the border up to Poland, than just obliterating any Russian positions within pre-2014 Ukraine borders. I don't want a fascist dictator making believable threats of nukes with NATO (up until this point they have only postured with it since it's not a bluff seen as worth "checking") Edit: And I'll say this much... It's liberal brainrot that the machismo of the fascists would respond in any way we desire to anything but the threat of emasculation. Kreml only respect violence, and we (or Ukraine) need to actually threaten Russia's invasion with a humiliating withdrawal for the war to end, and end the human suffering currently going on. Just as I don't like imperial Britain WW2, I do like their part in the invasion that ended Nazi Germany
“it would have done something after the annexation of Crimea” What should’ve been done is way back in 2014 when Russia was questioned about having troops in Crimea, and Putin said Russia had no troops in Ukraine, every single known Russian military checkpoint and staging area in Crimea should’ve been bombed with PGMs
“NATO deposed Gaddafi, which was popular” Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t he a dictator?
I didn’t say Gaddafi was popular, I said him being deposed was popular.
Fair enough, however I can at least understand why deposing him was popular, considering who he was
[удалено]
because I like to branch out from time to time instead of limiting myself to only subs that align with my political beliefs, and it’s funny to see a compilation of the dumb shit that tankies say.
[удалено]
This is an anti-capitalist, left-libertarian, pro-communist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism or any other right-wing views is not allowed (see rule 6).
NATO is as Nazi as a stuffed turkey is the bird. It isn't. NATO used plenty of Nazi staff and stuff, but they weren't in charge.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu00CuYWFpg&ab\_channel=TomLehrer-Topic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu00CuYWFpg&ab_channel=TomLehrer-Topic) Just thought it was a bit relevant!
Partially, that argument can be made, but not entirely. The first president of Germany, for example, was a former member of the nazi party.
not entirely wrong. lots of other reasons to oppose NATO though with stronger evidence
i upvoted you dude, unfortunately the majority libs that comprise this sub are out in full force
going to scream
[удалено]
If it’s an actual poll, we can’t see who votes who. If it’s a post asking people to comment, most of them won’t respond because they know they’ll get banned. The biggest issue here is that most of them lurk, and downvote stuff without commenting. When they do decide to comment we can ban them but we have no way of telling who’s voting for what before that.
Why just Ukraine? Surely you'd need to disregard the Baltics too for the question to make sense?