>>13255When is "originally"?
If you go back far enough, it might be true that at one point there was no single totally unified leftist position on colonialism, but that's not the same as being "pro-settler" - and by the time of Marx, you had abolitionism and opposition to colonialism in India and Ireland which were mainstream within the left.
The USSR did specifically lend a lot of support to zionist colonization of Palestine in the '40s (following in the tracks of such
great leftists as Lord Balfour, PM of the British Empire, and Baron Walter Rothschild, international war financier), but turned against it in the late '40s-early-'50s. Lenin, in his writings, had opposed it, and I don't claim that Lenin was perfect, but Stalin briefly supporting it was obviously a mistake, and was proven to be so shortly after the partition of Palestine. There is a lot of dishonesty about what happened after that point, but it is a historical fact that zionist terrorists began bombing and attacking Soviet embassies, a trend which continued for decades alongside intensified slanders of the Soviet government as "anti-semitic" since they had pulled support for zionism, which was already increasingly US-aligned by 1950 to such an extent that overlooking its reactionary, fascistic character became geopolitically suicidal.
In essence, the USSR pulled its "free shit for zionists" program, and immediately became the target of attacks, espionage, and conspiracies which western schools and mainstream discussion don't teach you about.