Yep. Americans always seem shocked when other countries turn out to have their own histories that differ from "good" (pro-American) or "bad" (anti-American) explanations.

Didn't the USSR have the buffer of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland prior to the start of WWII? All these countries were declaring neutrality and bending over backwards to avoid offending both Berlin and Moscow, which were both trying to sway the neutral states one way or another. Kind of weird the Kremlin would conspire to eliminate the buffer to sit beside arch enemy Nazi Germany.

Also kind of weird the USSR would abandon the Franco-Soviet Mutual Defence Pact ratified in early '36 - a pact that freaked out Hitler - in favour of teaming up with the arch enemy.

Kind of weird to conspire with the German military (that had only just finished invading Russia) to provide it the secret bases to develop the technologies and tactics of combined-arms manoeuvre warfare in violation of Versailles.

Kind of weird for Lenin to orchestrate the 'Social Fascist' argument and propaganda attack on Social Democrat Parties in Germany and elsewhere. The SPD was more hated by the KPD than the NSDAP. The KPD considered the Nazi rise to power a mere temporary event, one to pave the way for the communists' assumption of the reins of the state. They were right; just had to have a second world war to accomplish it. What's a few million deaths to accomplish an objective?

And weird for Stalin's Comintern and the USSR to accuse Britain and France of starting WWII after Germany invaded Poland.

On 7 September 1939, Stalin spoke to Comintern leader Georgi Dimitrov, a member of his inner circle, who was dealing with the disbelief and upset of many European communists about the Soviet-German Non-aggression Pact. (Why communists were in 'disbelief' seems peculiar to me. Stalin had signed the Italo-Soviet Friendship, Neutrality, and Nonaggression Pact in 1933 with Mussolini, the first fascist. Until '41 fascism was a minor concern. Enemy #1 was the Social Democrats.) 'A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries. Hitler, without understanding it or desiring it, is shaking and undermining the capitalist system. We can manoeuvre and pit one side against the other to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible,' said Stalin. This conflict offered expansion: 'What would be the harm if, as a result of the rout of Poland, we were to extend the socialist system onto new territory and populations?' Sergo Beria, Lavrentiy Beria's son, remembered this as the time of the Soviet leaders talking about how they pitted Germany against France and Britain and that this aligned with Lenin's goal of a second world war. The first birthed the USSR; the second would birth worldwide revolution. In July 1940, Stalin reiterated the aforementioned ideas in a conversation with the British ambassador to Moscow Stafford Cripps. The Soviet leader said that before the outbreak of WWII no Soviet-British rapprochement was possible as his country focused on the demolition of the 'old' balance of powers built after WWI without the USSR, whilst Great Britain fought for its retention. 'The Soviet Union wanted to change the old equilibrium, while England and France wished to preserve it. Also, Germany wanted to make a change in the equilibrium and this common desire [with the USSR] to do away with the old equilibrium became the basis for the rapprochement with the Germans.'

>the spent remnants of the Red Army to subjugate Eastern Europe by force.

The Red Army had about 11.3 million personnel serving in '45. That's quite a 'remnant'.

In the end, the 'shed light on' apologia isn't very illuminating. The imperialism of USSR-based International Socialism was its feature. War and mass death was a price they were willing (for others) to pay.

"The spent remnants" were the single most powerful army in the world.

Basically the Siberian Anabasis.

[removed]

[removed]