From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me…

In the long term, yes. The bourgeoisie are rich and comfortable with no desire for a war that could jeopardize their position. However, they have lots of financial incentives for military spending because it’s rife with corruption. As such, they do a lot of saber-rattling to make WWIII seem like a genuine possibility, while also fighting in proxy wars around the globe.

But the problem is, they’re playing with forces beyond their control. If you have a generation raised on constant propaganda to genuinely hate other countries, then all it takes is a couple people in the wrong positions at the wrong time who aren’t in on the game. Right now, the rabid dog is on the leash of the bourgeoisie, but the gamble they’ve been making is that they can keep pumping steroids into it forever and never lose control.

Furthermore, wasting all this money on war and militarism has allowed China to emerge as a credible threat to their global hegemony. China is sitting back and focusing on domestic economic development, and they are winning the peace while the US burns itself out. What happens when the only area in which the US has an advantage is the military? Are people really going to accept becoming #2, or are they going to force a confrontation? Given that we’re talking about Americans, who are 1) Riled up on propaganda, 2) Preoccupied with being “#1,” and 3) Unused to experiencing the effects of fucking around firsthand, it seems almost inevitable. Ofc, it’s true that we somehow maintained a Cold War with the USSR for decades, but it’s different today because conditions are declining and the far-right is growing stronger every day.

Blood red snow, by Gunter Koschorrek. ISBN 9780760321980 - Diary extracts from a German soldier who fought on the Eastern front and saw some pretty terrible things.

This is the first time anyone’s been able to produce a source on the matter to me and while I’m skeptical of an account by a single German soldier claiming negative things about the other side, I appreciate you providing it.

Not to mention all the stuff coming out of the Ukraine invasion, with Russian conscripts being shot for retreating by their commanders.

This makes the claim less plausible, not more. What are you actually claiming here, that Russians are genetically predisposed to shooting their own soldiers or something? We’re talking about completely different governments with completely different people operating in completely different structures and organizations. It seems to me that any accusation like that that’s thrown at both the USSR and modern Russia should come under extra scrutiny, because it’s more likely that it’s just recycled propaganda.

Which “harsh punishments” were the country subjected to, exactly? Did it involve killing 27 million people?

Except for all the Nazis who were recruited in Operation Paperclip, of course. Or the one who went on to become Head of NATO. Or all the Nazi companies like the one that manufactured Zyklon B and is known today as Bayer.

Are you sure it’s not you who needs to do more learning?

Also, Britain and France signed a non-agression pact with the Nazis too, and not only that, they sold out Czechoslovakia (who they were allied to) in exchange! Meanwhile, the Soviets had previously sought agreements with them against the Nazis which were rejected.

I won’t deny that they did some awful things, but to be like, “At least the Nazis paid the price” is completely whitewashing the atrocities that the Soviets suffered at the hands of the Nazis, it’s absolutely Nazi apologia to say that.

It’s an objective historical fact that the Soviets lost 27 million fighting the Nazis. If that’s Soviet apologia, then I guess reality has a Soviet bias.

You should do actual historical research instead of believing baseless and ridiculous propaganda. Tell me, where did you hear about any of those claims? Let me guess, Enemy at the Gates?

The Soviet Union lost 27 million people fighting the Nazis, wtf is this Nazi apologia?

Shadowrun: Dragonfall has a satisfying mission where you get to shoot up a neo-nazi compound.

Which of my questions is that supposed to answer, exactly?

They haven’t because nobody’s actually crossed a line. A few leaked documents isn’t going to provoke an assassination, it’s an extreme measure so they’re not going to do it over something so trivial.

They have a long history of infiltrating foreign governments and assassinating world leaders, so what makes you think they’d have trouble doing the same in the US? Surely, during the height of the Cold War, they would’ve had contingencies for America electing a socialist. If they did back then, then who did what when to change that situation? Nobody’s really said no to the CIA since, again, Kennedy fired Dulles and was assassinated shortly afterward.

The CIA can always assassinate a president who gets too far out of line, like what happened to JFK, but they don’t tend to mind the right so much as the left.