StalinTrueComrade🇺🇸🇵🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳🇰🇵

Nomadic American tribal warrior from the barbaric steppes

[StalinTrueComrade🇺🇸🇵🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳🇰🇵 @StalinTruComrad]

This is what the ACP is doing while leftists play in the street and get run over by cars

[StalinTrueComrade🇺🇸🇵🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳🇰🇵 @StalinTruComrad]

@fem_mb I thought you Zionists love prison rape
https://t.co/yEAyEwiY6D

[Daniel Haqiqatjou @Haqiqatjou]

The peak of Israeli history was when they mass protested for the right to rape prisoners.

Jewish protestors broke down one of the prison walls chanting how they were going to rape non-Jewish prisoners.

[Liger @EdbieLigerSmith]

Angela Davis & company are charging $150 for tickets to a “socialism conference” next weekend so she can lecture you on why you need to condemn Iran.

You can also come to our event the same weekend for $20 & meet people who actually support the struggle against imperialism.

[StalinTrueComrade🇺🇸🇵🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳🇰🇵 @StalinTruComrad]

@CrazyCatComrade Wtf

[RTSG @RTSG_Main]

The West FAILED to prevent WW2, while the Soviet Union did EVERYTHING to stop Hitler for over half a decade.

Here's what really happened - a master thread.🧵

EARLY SOVIET-WESTERN RELATIONS

Soviet orientation towards a détente with France and Britain was not a given. In 1930, France and the USSR were engaged in a full-blown trade war. In June, Stalin proclaimed that France is "the most aggressive and militarist of all the aggressive and militarist countries in the world."

When the Soviet Union retaliated with their economic counter-measures in October, French industrialists started pressuring their government to normalize trade with the Soviet Union. This made the usually-hostile-to-the-Soviets French ambassador to Moscow change his tune: “I have always believed that we should leave the door open to accommodation."

In 1931, Franco-Soviet relations cooled down. It was economically necessitated, but also a part of the new direction the Soviet Union was taking with its new foreign minister, Litvinov. The Franco-Soviet non-aggression pact was signed in November 1931.

START OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY

The big turning point was Hitler's rise to power. The newly established non-aggression pacts between the Soviet Union and France, as well as with other countries in Europe, were to be the basis of normal ‘pan-European’ relations.

In 1933, the Soviet Union formally adopted the policy of collective security which was meant to unify Europe around stopping German expansion and militarization. Initial talks between France and the Soviet Union started to formalize collective security under the Eastern Pact, and the US recognized the USSR. Finally, at the beginning of 1934, Stalin defined the main enemy facing the Soviet Union: "[...] the victory of fascism in Germany and the triumph of the idea of revenge, which […] has given a new impetus to the growth of armaments and to the preparations for an imperialist war."

However, the thrust & initiative behind collective security got intentionally blunted after the French foreign minister was killed in 1934. Laval, France's new foreign minister, was a noted Germanophile. He would become a nazi collaborator in 1940.

The grand idea behind the Eastern pact, a mutual-assistance pact between all Eastern European states including the USSR and guaranteed by Britain and France, was filtered down to the vapid Franco-Soviet Treaty and Soviet-Czechoslovak treaty, conditional on France acting first (this clause came from the Cz. side). Litvinov was furious. In 1935, the British FM Eden visited Moscow. However, the talks didn't bear fruit, much to the dismay of Soviet officials, especially the Soviet ambassador in London. Rather, Britain concluded a Naval Agreement with Germany without consulting either Paris or Moscow.

ENEMY NUMBER ONE: COMMUNISM

After the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, Litvinov again urged collective action at the League Council - he got no support. "A long list of disappointments," Litvinov noted.

The reasons for this failure were ideological, fear of communism. As collective security was collapsing, the British embassy in Paris submitted a report on "Sovietization in France." When the Spanish Civil War started, it was noted that "the enormous majority [of torries] are passionately anti-Government and pro-Franco."

Even the nazis realized this. Göring summarized it in a conversation with Mussolini: "Conservative circles are, it is true, worried about the strength of Germany; but their greater fear is of Bolshevism."

Chamberlain became the British PM in May 1937. Haslam, a British historian, describes the logic of British conservatives: "It was, at root, a question of “us” (Western/Central Europe) versus “them” (the Bolsheviks). And in this attitude Chamberlain was by no means alone."

In February 1938, Eden resigned and was replaced by Halifax as British FM. With the British government wholly taken by irrational anti-communists, the perfect storm formed for Hitler’s expansion.

“At the beginning of 1938, Soviet foreign policy in Europe was in ruins.”

The Anschluss, in March 1938, was met with timid reactions from France and Britain. A few days later, Litvinov proposed a collective conference regarding Czechoslovakia to no reply from the West.

Indeed, the last stop before a broader European conflict became inevitable was Czechoslovakia. And in May, it was shown to everyone that Germany is not unstoppable. Czechoslovak partial mobilization, based on a faulty intelligence report that Germany was mobilizing, caused Hitler to step back from his demands and postpone the plan to take over the country.

THE MUNICH CRISIS

Even after Germany stepped down in the face of resistance to its expansionism, from September 12th to the end of the month, Hitler managed to get all the concessions from Britain that he wanted.

Chamberlain flew to Germany to negotiate a deal. The formulation to which he agreed there was pressed by Britain and France to the Czechoslovaks as more or less an ultimatum. Simultaneously, the Soviets were looking at any means to honor the Franco-Czechoslovak-Soviet treaty. The Soviet Union mobilized dozens of divisions, totaling about 1,000,000 soldiers, as a reaction to German pressure on Czechoslovakia.

Then, on September 22nd, Hitler raised his terms. He considered Chamberlain to be a worm and a coward, and as such, the gambit as reasonable. Chamberlain, on the other hand, thought Hitler was one of the "reasonable men" that one could talk to (unlike, of course, the "beastly Bolsheviks"). As such, Chamberlain single-handedly did everything in his power to prevent a decisive end to Hitler's regime. A combination of factors made September 1938 the perfect moment to stop German expansion: strong Czech defenses, the Soviet pledge to intervene with up to a million soldiers, which would create conditions that would force France to intervene as well, and an internal conspiracy to overthrow Hitler when the "impossible" Czech gambit fails (Oster conspiracy).

It's infamous by now how the end of Czechoslovakia was dealt with. Mussolini was invited as the moderator, and Czechoslovaks themselves were not present, nor the Soviets. France and Britain effectively conceded every demand Hitler made.

“The crucial issue for London, as ever, was, at all costs, to keep the Bolsheviks out of Central Europe”, not to stop Germany.

In March 1939, Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia. Stalin remarked in a speech that the Soviet Union wouldn’t “be drawn into conflicts by warmongers who are accustomed to having others pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them.”

Chamberlain formally abandoned appeasement in early 1939. But nevertheless, when Litvinov called for a six-power conference, London called it premature. Rather, Britain hastily guaranteed Poland without a broader plan for European security.

THE ALLIANCE THAT NEVER WAS

A few weeks later, Britain requested that the Soviets unilaterally guarantee all European neighbors of the USSR. This was more or less an insult to the Soviets: no reciprocity, Romania and Poland already said they wouldn’t accept Soviet help, and it made no mention of the Baltic States, a sticking point for the Soviets. For the past 5 years, all these security issues have been made abundantly clear to London.

The Soviet counterproposal was a fully-fledged triple mutual-assistance pact covering aggression against any signatory (France, Britain, Soviet Union). This counter was sent on April 17, and it took the British six precious weeks to concede on the principle of mutual assistance. In the meantime, Litvinov was replaced by Molotov as foreign minister. This didn’t signal a Soviet reorientation per se, since Molotov continued Litvinov’s collective security steadfastly.

Britain and France wanted to sign an agreement which was conditional on League of Nations machinery and which was not conditioned on staff talks. It has to be noted that the British Chiefs of Staff changed their assessment of concluding an agreement on military grounds with the Soviets from negative, to favorable. In other words, both professional advice (and British public opinion) favored a deal with the Soviets. Chamberlain and his Cabinet were the ones delaying due to their anti-communism.

So, by 1939, only a fool would be satisfied with an agreement based on the League of Nations, considering everything that happened: the Munich conference, Manchuria & Abyssinia. Moscow would not sign a paper commitment and negotiate its content after the fact, which is precisely what France had done in 1935, and which directly resulted in the Munich betrayal.

In spring, the Soviets refused German overtures to improve relations. When approached by German diplomats, their Soviet counterparts would mess with them by mentioning “a little book” called Mein Kampf.

Britain and France sent diplomats to Moscow to finally start negotiations in June. On 23 July, Molotov cut the knot by proposing that military talks begin immediately and in parallel. The military phase started on August 5th, but it took the British-French mission 6 days to reach Moscow because they traveled aboard a slow merchant ship to Leningrad. Drax's instructions, the British representative, were to proceed slowly and keep to generalities until the political agreement was settled. He also had no authority to sign any agreement. The Soviet side was represented by Voroshilov, Soviet head of defense, with credentials signed by Molotov, empowering him to negotiate and sign any agreement. Basically, the British and French were acting completely unseriously and flippantly.

On 14 August, Voroshilov asked what he called the cardinal question: would Soviet forces be permitted passage across Polish territory in the Vilna region and Galicia, and across Romania? Without it, he said, there was no way for Soviet forces to make contact with the enemy at all. Neither Drax nor the French representative had authority to answer. London and Paris pressured Poland, Paris more so, but this pressure was never on the level of the pressure that the two countries applied to Czechoslovakia during the Munich crisis. It was too little too late. Halifax’s position was that Poland was a sovereign state, and it could not be coerced - completely cynical in view of the Munich crisis.

The Poles were completely immovable, a staunch reactionary state. It had refused association with the USSR in the four-power declaration of March, refused again over the guarantee negotiations, and their answer on 20 August was that Poland had no military agreement with the Soviet Union and did not intend to have one.

THE MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT

The situation was urgent in August and every day counted. German military buildup in the east was visible, with Soviet military intelligence reporting on it. Hitler had already planned for the invasion of Poland to start on September 1st since Spring. The fact that Hitler sent a telegram to Stalin on 20 August (the same day Poland said it wouldn’t agree to any deal with the USSR) asking him to receive Ribbentrop urgently, within 48 hours, was a tell in itself. Germany was forcing the pace because Germany had a war to wage. The press, too, was broadly speculating on a move in late-August.

Daladier authorized the French representative in Moscow to sign some kind of deal with the Soviets on the same day it was announced Ribbentrop was coming to Moscow (August 21st). But that was a move of desperation. Since Poland categorically refused Soviet help, such a treaty would be meaningless in any case.

Britain and France could offer, at best, a defensive alliance requiring the USSR to fight Germany immediately, on ground it could not reach, alongside partners whose reliability the previous eighteen months (or 6 years depending on how you look at it) was not established. The Soviets feared a specific scenario of a German-Polish war where the USSR has no agreement with either side, the Wehrmacht arriving at the 1921 frontier a few hundred kilometers from Minsk, and the possibility that Britain and France would stay non-combatants.

It was in this context that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed. The Soviet Union didn’t owe its military to the West - the Soviet Union was fighting for its own security. Throughout the 30s, they wanted to establish a security system with the West because they correctly identified that Hitler was the enemy number 1, even bearing in mind that both France and Britain invaded the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik revolution. But that didn't work.

It’s true that Poland sealed its faith by unilaterally and absolutely refusing Soviet help. That doesn’t mean that Poland started WW2 as nazis claim. It means Polish foreign policy was incompetent and staunchly reactionary/anti-communist, and because of that it failed to protect itself from German aggression. And there is no indication that the Soviet Union would, had a Moscow-Warsaw-London-Paris pact been concluded, “stay” in Poland after the German invasion. Based on what I can say this? Beyond the fact that no documentation exists to prove such intent (pre-MRP), Poland itself carved out a disputed part of Czechoslovakia during the Munich crisis. This argument isn't about hypocrisy of that action, so we’ll ignore the double standard for the moment. Rather, because Poland participated in the carving of Czechoslovakia, Litvinov threatened to denounce the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact. However, that turned out to only be a threat, and the pact was explicitly reaffirmed in November of the same year. Why would the Soviet Union show good faith in this way if it was always intended to carve up Poland? Especially at a moment when collective security collapsed, wouldn't it have been easier for the Soviet Union to start negotiating with Germany at that point in time? Yet the USSR still pursued collective security for almost a whole year after Munich, giving every chance to France, Britain and Poland to join forces and protect Eastern Europe from German expansionism. The German option started to be considered seriously by the Soviets only in July/August.

AFTER THE PACT

Now let's focus on the events after the invasion of Poland and other events in 1939-1940.

In 1940, several British and French campaigns and plans, some realised, some not, were preemptive illegal military actions in the name of security. Operation Wilfred mined the territorial waters of Norway, and a subsequent plan, “Plan R4”, was meant to occupy parts of Norway and Sweden to prevent Swedish shipment of iron to Germany. That didn’t come to be only because the British got smoked in Norway. In any case, the mining was an illegal operation as far as international law is concerned, but it was deemed justified because the security angle was more decisive than the legality of the action. A similar calculation was made by the Soviet Union. Moreover, most strikingly, Britain straight up invaded and occupied Iceland, which declared its independence after the fall of Denmark. Attempts to negotiate with Iceland to ally with Britain were made. Iceland refused and after that Britain just invaded and occupied Iceland.

The Soviet entry/invasion of Poland probably wasn't legal, even though the Soviet line was that the government had already collapsed so it technically was. Maybe Poland de facto collapsed, but the Polish government left on the night of 17th, after the Soviet troops entered. I always held that I don't think the Soviet intervention was any "better" or "worse" (morally) depending on whether it's technically legal or not. It's not material to what happened in reality, and to what would've happened in either case.

In any case, bearing in mind that Ribbentrop was pressuring and warning the Soviets that if the USSR did not act, Germany might have to decide what happened with the territories east of the agreed line. The Soviets always feared a nazi rump puppet-Ukrainian in the south-east of then-Poland that could be used as a justification to invade the USSR at any point, similar to how the Sudeten nazis were used in 1938. Such a scenario would be untenable for Soviet security, and it would have most likely played out had there been no Molotov Ribbentrop pact, or if the Pact was just a non-aggression pact. In other words, if the USSR didn’t proactively take steps to secure its border, the alternative only seems to benefit the nazis.

A final note on Soviet motivation regards modern historiography. The most popular historian who tows the EU line of equalizing the Soviet Union and Germany is Roger Moorhouse. His book on the topic is a synthesis of existing evidence, which didn’t put out anything new that would be groundbreaking. Most modern historians agree that this is not a credible or honest framing. Moorhouse and EU equate the obvious differences between a regime that was pursuing extermination and one that was pursuing territorial security against the other; even if that meant, paradoxically, establishing a deal with the prior, having in mind how much Western conduct constrained Soviet options.

The Soviet Union acted defensively and intelligently, with great foresight of what's to come - a keen Soviet Realpolitik. They knew a war with Germany was inevitable, and they were preparing for it.

Author's note:

this thread is not an exhaustive list of every relevant event, but I was careful that the leaps in logic are made only in places where I can justify it with information that was omitted purely for the sake of length - as you can see, the thread is already too long. I'll attempt to respond to good-faith questions.

Sources used are Carley, Roberts, Haslam, Gorodetsky, archives... Most information can be easily fact-checked.

AI didn't write any part of the text. I used Sonnet 5 Max for grammar and feedback.

Thank you for reading.

Written by @RTSG_Mak.

[Haz Al-Din 🇷🇺 @InfraHaz]

When they turned Communism into a scary word, they were building a Rockefeller-led totalitarian system built for killing human potential.

Poisoning people’s souls with garbage and filth in the name of “freedom,” pumping drugs into people’s communities, colonizing them with debt, devastating their livelihoods, gutting public infrastructure, trafficking people’s children.

They’ve been doing this for nearly 100 years, while making new bogeymen for you to fear. Communists. Islamic radicals. Space aliens.

Has life improved? TVs have become cheaper, electronics are more abundant. But what does that matter when your water and food are poisoned, sidewalks aren’t safe, and you can’t afford a roof over your head?

Maybe the reason we have technological progress isn’t because of them, but in spite of them.

Maybe it’s actually the public sector who’s been researching and developing all this technology, while these capitalist bloodsuckers reap all the benefits and leach off the fruits of common labor.

Were Communists perfect? No, no humans are perfect. Evil exists in all people. The first Christians who fought Rome were not “perfect” either.

Communists never claimed to create utopias. What they created were defensive fortresses being besieged by a world system led by capitalist predators hungry for people’s land, wealth and resources.

It’s better to struggle against evil within under the guidance of good principles like Communism, than to outright embrace evil principles like capitalism.

[Liger @EdbieLigerSmith]

You can tell that Sam Seder & Emma Vigeland run in liberal Zionist social circles where people like Sneako and Candace are considered beyond the pale.

They feel like everyone has to walk on eggshells to avoid being called anti-Semitic, when outside of those elite circles nobody really gives AF, and Sneako and Candace are actually quite popular.

The Majority Report target audience is not working class, but upper middle class radical liberals who have grown discontented with MSNBC.

[Haz Al-Din 🇷🇺 @InfraHaz]

Dear Fox News viewers and other types of boomers:

Deportations? Yes, deport Zionists & “victims” of communism.

Strict borders? Yes, like USSR or China.

Build the wall? Yes, like Berlin Wall.

Abolish prisons? No, build 1000s of gulags.

Second amendment? Yes, like Hoxha’s Albania.

Abolish taxes? Yes, like North Korea.

Free markets? Yes, like Kolkhoz markets, which were indeed free.

Conservative values? Yes, conserve the proletarian dictatorship.

Christian values? Yes, abolish usury + omnia sunt communia.

More room for religion? Your wish is granted, enjoy Sharia.

Patriotism? Yes, patriotism for the socialist motherland.

Be careful what you wish for.

Communists are not “democratic socialists.”

When you meet some real Communists, you will beg for Hillary.

[RTSG @RTSG_Main]

How life feels after realizing Marx was right about everything:

[reason @reason]

Flock allegedly spotted this Colorado woman's truck around the time and location of a package theft.

What ensued was a Kafkaesque scene in which she insisted it wasn't her, while an officer who came to her door said he had indisputable proof—but refused to show her unless she admitted she stole the package.

"It is her, it is 100 percent, it is locked in, there is zero doubt," he tells her.

But police dropped the case after she provided her cellphone tracking data, camera footage from her truck, and video placing her elsewhere at the time of the theft

From wrongful arrests to officers stalking exes, license plate readers keep exposing police failures: https://t.co/FPyx05m1iZ

[Ethan Levins ✝️ @EthanLevins2]

I was told by the DHS to never speak on Ben Gvir again.

They didn’t ask me about a single American politician.

It was ONLY about Ben Gvir, and they TOLD ME to stop.

Why is the DHS protecting him? I’m an American (born and raised!).

Does my free speech stop with Gvir?

[Haz Al-Din 🇷🇺 @InfraHaz]

They understand America better than any academic scholar.

The rulers hate humanity, misanthropic nihilism is becoming widespread.

American capitalist game theory: Exploit, cheat and destroy your fellow man for your own immediate “benefit.”

Same logic as cannibalism.

[ACP Florida @ACP_FL]

In the FL Chapter of the ACP, we take our second amendment rights and responsibilities seriously. We don't meet up at the range to socialize and casually throw lead down range; we build our dry-fire skills at home and come together to run drills that give us objective metrics of improvement (or stagnation) over time.

As communists, we take our responsibility to protect ourselves and our communities seriously, and we act accordingly. The Future Belongs to the Working Class. Are you prepared to meet it?

[ابن أوتشيها 🏴‍☠️ @SomaliSasuke]

having to clock in to work early in the morning knowing somewhere a white woman made a milly off strangling her three babies to death

[RTSG @RTSG_Main]

The People's Republic of China is BASED.

LONG LIVE MAO

[The Last American Vagabond @TLAVagabond]

Parents Catch FBI In Plot To Force Mentally Ill Son To Be A Right Wing Terrorist https://t.co/Cfe5zRbeHa (2018)

[Chay Bowes @BowesChay]

Ukrainian Dictator Zelensky at the grave of Nazi allied Yevhen Konovalets

He was the founder of Ukrainian nationalist terrorism and the head of a political gang that funded itself through theft, terror and extortion.

Born near Lvov in 1891, he commanded Sich Riflemen units during the failed brutal "Ukrainian independence war". After that collapse he created the Ukrainian Military Organization and then the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, or "OUN" in 1929.

These terror groups existed to wage underground war through sabotage bombings and targeted killings against the Polish state. Polish authorities correctly treated them as terrorist organizations and often described them as criminal gangs.

OUN members under his leadership assassinated Polish Interior Minister Bronisław Pieracki in 1934. In 1933 he ordered the murder of the Soviet consul in Lvov as supposed revenge for the supposed "Holodomor" a famine that killed more outside if Ukraine than in Ukraine itself.

That act achieved nothing except to mark him for elimination.

Allegations of outright banditry followed the movement, UVO and OUN cells carried out armed robberies of post offices banks and private property to steal money for their "operations", treating political struggle as cover for theft, all sounds quite familiar when we look at todays Ukraine.

His ideology demanded an ethnically pure Ukraine won by force. Poles Jews and other minorities had no place in it. While young brainwashed radicals risked their lives in the underground he lived in comfort in European exile issuing orders and cultivating foreign contacts including with Nazi Germany.

Stalin had him killed in Rotterdam in 1938 with a bomb hidden in a box of chocolates delivered by NKVD agent Pavel Sudoplatov. The Soviet goal was simple, remove the one man holding the Nazi allied nationalists together so they would turn on each other.

Within two years the OUN split into Melnyk and Bandera factions. The later wartime record of Nazi collaboration anti Jewish violence and the mass murder of Poles in Volhynia grew directly from the radical ethnonationalist foundation Konovalets built.

Today Ukraine is remarkably reburying him as a pure independence hero. That requires erasing the terrorism, the gangster funding the ethnic cleansing and the fact that the organization he created became a vehicle for some of the worst violence of the mid twentieth century.

He was never a statesman. He was a professional killer who ran a movement that mixed political murder with theft and whose methods produced the bloodshed and fragmentation that followed.
The same radical currents still pressure the current leadership. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a Jew, faces bullying and intimidation from ultra neo Nazi groups that draw inspiration from the Konovalets OUN tradition.

These groups have repeatedly targeted him with threats and public pressure, forcing him to navigate constant fear for his safety and position as a Jewish president in a political environment still shaped by ethnonationalist, Nazi allied ideology.

Zelensky plays his role for these dark forces as he does for his paymasters in London, Washington and Brussels, all who willfully ignore the disgusting celebration and hero worship of mass killers like Konovolets.

Welcome to basket case Ukraine in 2026.

[StalinTrueComrade🇺🇸🇵🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳🇰🇵 @StalinTruComrad]

@TheyThemItalian Why are you as a “communist” advocating for gun control in America?

[Haz Al-Din 🇷🇺 @InfraHaz]

How US soldiers on the ground actually feel about the war:

“Be a good goy and do what Israel tells you to"

"Operation Epstein Fury"

"Peace deal #64 incoming... ALL THIS FOR THE HOLY LAND"

“I ❤️ flock cameras”

The regime has been flooding social media with bots and foreign tethers (“patriotic” fans of Loomer and Gunther Eaglema) to make the anti-Epstein masses feel marginal and alone.

All the bullshit Pete Hegseth garbage, the disgusting pro-regime pro-war slop that’s dominating your feeds is 99% driven by bots and call centers in New Delhi and Tel Aviv.

The people are awake. The regime is condemned to death.

[StalinTrueComrade🇺🇸🇵🇸🇷🇺🇨🇳🇰🇵 @StalinTruComrad]

@forbiddenmerch @grok Wow anti communists really are retarded

[NOKSTER @NOKSTERRR]

My Russian supporters are literally drone operators 🇷🇺

Look what they made.

ACP HAS GONE INTERNATIONAL.