Good point. Seems like we forget this.

This isn't a fair argument. Imagine, tomorrow USA fails, a lot of its former allies get current marginal opposition in power. They'll line up telling how USA occupied them, did this and that against their will. And they'll be partially right. Partially wrong.

The boundaries in Europe after WWII were determined by WWII. That's how it went.

That's because these "representatives" were not representing the people of their countries. They were representing the interests of the USSR in those countries.

I'll give you an example of what it looks like when something does not happen against the will of a country.

In the 1960s, at the hight of the cold war, France asked NATO to leave its country and withdrew its own troups from NATO command. NATO left, and that was it.

In 1968, Albania withdrew from Warsaw pact. And that was it.

This in the world where China and Saudi Arabia are top players.

The fact that we accept undemocratic regimes as legal representatives of their countries for pragmatic reasons doesn't change that.

I guess what went wrong in this debate - and it was my fault as well - is that for a democratic country, we can often get away with using sloppy language that conflates "country" and "people". But for undemocratic regimes, that no longer works.

There were other representatives that wouldn't have signed, but they had literally had guns to their heads, and trigger pulled. Soviet occupation of much of Europe was by force, lots of it. It involved disappearances and executions of dissenters and even potential dissenters. This was done by USSR in perfect harmony and agreement with Nazi Germany. It really, really was against the will of Central European nations, such as the Poles.

Not everyone there, of course; you can always find honest ideological support, willful lackeys and stupid fellow travelers. But these countries stayed under Soviet influence very much due to literally having guns to the heads of people. Katyn, for instance.

There is yet another twist - even for USSR, it wasn't Russia itself. It was USSR, which was comprised of many more countries at the time. The units that were in Czechoslovakia were Ukrainians. And before there are arguments, that they were commanded from Moscow, the head honcho at the time was Brezhnev, from Ukraine.

The thing is, that communists in 1948 really did win the elections. The people at the time really wanted communism.

Just like in 1989 they wanted change for capitalism. Who knows, maybe in another 10-20-30 years they will want a change again. Should it be accompanied with a narrative, that the fall of Iron Curtain was a well orchestrated putsch to rob their countries?

Elections where the population was presented with a single list and where the police force and officials overseeing the election had been purged - both the army and police force were under Soviet-influenced Communist control. The only non-Communist minister, Jan Masaryk, was found defenestrated outside his office. (This was declared a suicide, but in 2004 Soviet archives indeed confirmed that he'd been thrown out of his window).

In simpler terms, this is called coup d'état.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Czechoslovak_coup_d%27%C3...

The Red Army PURGED the Polish elite, starting in Katyn.

What the fuck.

Every country/nation did all kinds of nasty shit, it's just a matter of how far back you want to look.

EDIT: typo

Not that facts matter to you, but Poland attacked Soviets in 1920. Slovakia (Tiso regime) joined Hitler's forces on eastern front. They also attacked Poland and had a war with Hungary, both in 1939.

But given your attitude I'm pretty sure there won't be any meaningful discussion so I'll leave it at that.

the 1920 war was a result of that, Poles trying to reclaim territories in Ukraine - using the chaos of the Russian Revolution. but yeah, totally attacking Russia.

but all of that justifies the occupation by the Red Army from 1945 till 1989. yup.