Jay what about the USSR supporting communist parties in the west?

So? the USA supports Capitalist parties in the East

What's the point in having an alliance with another nation if you just let them get shit on without recourse.

Rye the USSR also went to war with Poland but Britian and France didn't go to war with the USSR why?

"Russia had not initiated aggression, hence they were seen as something of unlikely allies at the time
and Russia invading Poland was shoved under "Retaliation for Operation Barbarossa" and "Liberating Poland from the Nazis""

Didn't the USSR switch sides during WW2?

I'm remembering that correctly, right?

they had a non-aggression pact

basically Stalin and Hitler came together initially and said "You get half of Poland and i get a half, and we wont attack each other so we can defend against the other fronts"

but then hitler invaded Russia in an attempt to take Moskou, breaking the pact

Yes they were allies with Germany so they could get east Poland so why didn't Britian or France declare war on the USSR?

i told you twice!

Russia had not initiated aggression, hence they were seen as something of unlikely allies at the time
and Russia invading Poland was shoved under "Retaliation for Operation Barbarossa" and "Liberating Poland from the Nazis"

they didn't declare war because why fight two wars when you can end at 1

after WW2 the russians didn't continue their conquest, so they were left at their borders

Jay the USSR wanted to invade Germany so the German invasion was ment to take them out before the USSR could take Germany out.

yes, according to your wikipedia article which itself states is full of plot-holes and unknowns

as i've said, its about as solid a case as the Trump-Russia dossier

Jay What about the USSR invading and occupying Barbarossa, parts Finland and the baltic states?

Aussie, a 'Revisionist' is literally someone who embelishes a story based losely on facts.

basically, what that article told me is that this guy decided to write a story to explain things after the fact, without any real evidence to back it up.

Since he's attributed to this 'Operation Thunderstorm', and there's no other source for it

It's kinda bunk.

Yes and as I've told you these people use Primany sources to prove what they claim so their enemies call them revisionists.

and yet you link us to their 'enemies', instead of primary sources?

sounds pretty revisionist to me.

I suggest you read some of David Irvings work to understand WW2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwFzm6rZH3o&t=3s

ya'll are movin' around too much

stick to one topic, clean it up

You linked to the Operation Thunderstorm bullshit which debunks itself. You linked to Bloody Sunday, which said that Germany was the aggressor

bouncing around just makes you look retarded

You're not proving your point.

You didn't dispute the fact that Russia's armed forces were focused on defending on the Japanese front

which would imply that they were NOT attempting an invasion, further debunking your operation: afternoon shower

he's using that as the reason Hitler invaded first, cuz the Russian western-front would be weak

Yes there were Russian armed forces in the east to stop the Japanes from invading. I don't deny that.

But Rye they were planing to invade Europe.

according to your shoddy wikipedia article

i mean, its synonimous with the Bush invasion of Iraq

"Oh saddam has WMD's, lets invade"

strike first, under the flag of preventing