• RNAi [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Look at what 33 years of “Pax Americana” did to everywhere, including the empire core, you fucking baboon

    • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m more curious what a “First Strike” on the Russian homeland would have looked like in 1945, given what a “First Strike” into China from North Korea did to MacArthur in 1954.

      Hell, has anyone consulted on the consequences of a “First Strike” on Hawaii by Japan four years earlier? Or a “First Strike” into Poland, by Germany, a few years before that? While we’re on the subject of “smoking gun becomes mushroom cloud”, what’s up with Iraq and the surrounding Middle East states, atm? Are they all groovy?

        • zifnab25 [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean, its the same tired “Stalin shouldn’t have stopped at Berlin” argument turned on its head. Trying to tell an entire planet that’s exhausted itself through total war for the last ten years “Please do one more war, just bigger this time!” is as insane now as it was back then.

          Nobody was in a position to wage a ground war across the entirety of Europe and the Middle East for a second time. The theory that the Allies (minus Russia, China, and all their regional partners) could have put troops into the center of Moscow in time to stop a test of the RD-1 is… just crazy wish fulfillment. That’s not even assuming a post-war Europe heavily tilted towards Soviet Russia as a savior rather than a villain… So many of these pundits think Europeans see the USSR through a post-1980s lens. They’ve got no sense of history.

          • PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s also fed by that American-centric narrative that Allied victory in WWII was overwhelmingly due to American forces with English, French, and Russian forces as background characters. So they assume Russian troops were neither necessary for Allied victory nor an impediment to America.

          • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            “Stalin shouldn’t have stopped at Berlin” argument turned on its head.

            My dad once unironically said “we should have kept going into Russia” to me whilest watching “Patton”, because apparently Patton suggested that once. I was baffled and had no retort. He doesn’t know I’m a commie and I’m fixin to keep it that way honestly.

          • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not to mention the US literally did not have the capability to deploy anymore nukes at that point. The “Stalin shouldn’t have stopped at Berlin” meme is predicated on this because one of the main reasons the USSR did stop was because they had no way of knowing if the US had more nukes.

  • Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    1 year ago

    I need to make a hexbear account just so I can use that brainworms emoji I’ve seen around

  • neo [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Imagine if we committed a genocide.”

    These people aren’t even self-aware enough for the “are we the baddies?” joke.

  • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah some Americans think America just magically does not produce GHGs. At the republican debate some guy even said that India was a bigger problem than the US. Look up their CO2 stats for a good laugh.

  • Tiocfaidhcaisarla [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    While it’s a wild take I think it illustrates what would have been necessary for the Soviets to consider at the beginning of the cold war and we can extrapolate some of their decisions from this.

    Like they honestly feared nuclear annihilation, and had good reason to, and so had to counter that with their own nuclear capabilities. I know I’m just outlining MAD but really, so much of post-revolution decision making in communist countries was survival-first, because at all points they were threatened by often better armed and richer nations, that as soon as they acquired world ending technology thought little of wiping huge populations off the map to continue western dominance. For the USSR and China, and Iran and the DPRK today, nukes were for survival. For the west, they were tools of hegemony

    • daisy [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like they honestly feared nuclear annihilation, and had good reason to

      This point cannot be overstated. Russia has been an invasion target by European powers for a millenium. And the USSR suddenly found themselves in a new antagonistic relationship with a country that (a) was the global power in terms of industrial capacity and science R&D, (b) had just integrated a whole lot of nazi scientists into their military-industrial complex via Operation Paperclip, and © had actually used nuclear weapons in combat. They’d have been insane not to try to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

      Frankly I don’t blame any country for trying to develop nuclear-armed ICBMs nowadays. It’s literally the only thing that’s been proven to make the US government think twice about invasion plans.

  • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    no climate change because the ashes from a hundred million more dead people would’ve lowered the global temperature and caused a famine killing even more people… duuuh

  • Fishroot [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    funny enough, ‘‘Ecological civilization’’ was a term coined by the USSR in the late 80s as they see pollution as a shortcoming of industrialization

    Just because the USA is run by geriatrics who enjoyed every earthly pleasure possible doesn’t mean other countries are as depraved as yours

  • Kuori [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    1 year ago

    c’mon bro just one more genocide man it’s not like last time this is a different strain dude, i promise, i swear bro, just trust me and hit this shit

  • Judge_Jury [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are they doing an ecofash take? That’s the only way I’ve been able to make any sense of it - under the assumption that we are the world’s rightful elite, and that such a thing exists in the first place, other places raising their quality of life is “selfishly dooming us all”

  • Grimble [he/him,they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ask them “What would be good about that” and get a string of graphs, metaphors, and vague on-paper benefits that wouldn’t affect a single regular citizen