site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 26, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939, agreed upon in the Molotov Ribbentrop pact, and subsequent occupation of "Eastern Borderlands" (EB) is usually justified on the grounds of either the collapse of Polish governance over EB, making it Terra Nullius, or on Soviets protecting EB from falling to the nazis.

Yet when Polish, communist, government was constituted at the end of WW2 and nazis lost, thus rendering both arguments used to justify Soviet rule of EB null, Warsaw wasn't returned sovereignty over it.

Is there an explanation for this military operation that wouldn't render Soviet administration of EB illegitimate under the Stimson Doctrine?

No, the Soviet Union was an Axis power and should have been eradicated along side the 3rd Reich.

You have been long to this site, you should have known better.

At exact same time, USSR was fighting Japan (it is an Axis power?) in the east.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_border_conflicts

It doesn't make USSR an Axis power, didn't you read that USSR was fighitng Japan at exact same time, can you read at all?

It this this your link proves anything, then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

proves UK&France were Axis powers too. Later UK&USSR occupied Iran. UK, the evil accomplices of Stalin.

Couldn't you just deny that it's an occupation but rather that it is a peacekeeping operation in the wake of Nazi deveststion of the area? Troops and administrators are there to prevent others from breaking the Stimson doctrine.