You do realize that Putin and the modern Russian Federation are both anti-communists? It is not 1985, though you might not realize that sitting in McCarthy and Nixon’s open graves.

“Everything I don’t like must be Russian bots” - An instruction guide for childish fantasy

Literally migrated instances because of midwest.social having performance/federation issues. But your account is younger than Trump first taking power in the US and putting loyalists in the US government, so…

No, the USSR did agree to take Eastern Poland in Molotov-Ribbentrop, but they did wait until after the Nazis took the western part before starting their invasion. A combination of waiting to see if Poland could fight off the Nazis, meaning that they didn’t have to worry about further Nazi expansion, and after that moving the border west to provide more territory needing to be taken in an eventual war with Germany.

While it is not justifying it, but is that really a major distinction. The purpose of several previous non-aggression pacts was to sign off on Nazi territorial annexation (again, selectively remembered with appeasement) of saying “it is okay to take the Sudetenland” and “We wont use the Anschluss as a Causus Belli”. The reason the Soviets took the eastern part of Poland was to push the border west and that they felt that they could justify this by the fact that it was part of the Russian Empire and Soviet Russia during the revolution and that it was lost to get peace in WW1. That does not justify it, just that any talk about the Soviets, rather than France and Britain, being more compromised and accommodating to the Nazis or that the Soviets were more pro-Nazi than the West is demonstrably wrong and rewritting history for cold war reasons.

Putin is not my leader, inform your boss Trump.

Lol, the cold war is over. You don’t have to keep rewriting history to justify the US as the only good guys and that Klaus Barbie and Rheinhard Gehlen were misunderstood.

points at guy that is completely correct “Get a load of this guy!”

Points to guy that is completely correct “Haha, get a load of this guy!”

No, that is Nazi propaganda that the US continued propagating through the cold war since it made the Soviets look bad. While there were definitely rapes that occurred, that happens with every occupying army, there was never any evidence of this being a policy or something tolerated by the officers. Any attempt to quantify this shows that American and British soldiers were more prolific in rapes of French women than Soviets anywhere on the Eastern Front, even though the usual refrain is just that the Soviets were better at covering it up than the US or UK, the lack of evidence is itself evidence. Also, most of the studies of this shows that having armed women combat fighters on the front and a more gender integrated military really cut down on the usual “boys will be boys” attitude of not addressing these things.

The other attempt to try to demonstrate this is the huge spike of recorded abortions in East Germany after the war, but if you think for a second about how Nazi Germany and West Germany outlawed abortions, but abortions became fully legal under East Germany, there might have been another explanation.

No they didn’t. If a non-aggression pact allowing Nazi annexation of territory is equivalent to an alliance, then France and Britain allied with the Nazis multiple times before the Soviets. There is a reason about how the only non-aggression pact that you hear about is Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and not the Munich Agreements or the Franco-German Declaration, etc. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact came out of the Soviets being turned down multiple times by France and Britain to forming an anti-fascist alliance.

This is the selective remembrance of appeasement. It is ignored that that encompassed many non-aggression pacts with the Nazis and is only remembered to selectively invoke for war hawking. If we say a nation is evil, than not being on board with a war of aggression is actually evil (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.) and you are just like Chamberlain, whose only motivation was being a pussy. You can discuss the morality or effectiveness, but Molotov-Ribbentrop was to try to delay the war for preparation and that the Nazis wouldn’t be stupid enough to start a war without their own oil and steel supplies and without preventing a possibility of a two front war with France/Britain, and the Soviets were caught flat-footed because of overestimating the rationality of the Nazis. There was also the worry that France and Britain might eventually join the Nazis since they were pretty vocal about fascism being a possible necessary evil as it is the most extreme form of anti-communism, even though the attempt of appeasement was trying to sit out an eventual war between the Nazis and USSR, since Judeo-Bolshevism was a thing Nazis believed before they even took power.