The Soviet Empire directly occupied every constituent "Republic" as colonies, as well as occupied the Warsaw Pact countries as satellite vassals, and used military force to put down any rebellion from their puppet nations in the Warpac. They denied the people any say in government, subverted unions into agents of the state instead of advocates for the workers, and systematically crushed any domestic political dissent using secret police.
As to whether I'm okay with consistently applying that? Sure. The last time the US fought a military conflict in order to annex a nation into empire was 1902. The Soviets did it consistently throughout their empire's existence.
Much of what you're claiming is undermined by the fact that the vast majority of Soviet people voted to keep the USSR. How could that have happened if people had no say in the government, and if the SSRs were just colonies? It's also undermined by facts like the early USSR letting some former Russian vassals become independent (e.g., Finland), successive Soviet constitutions granting more and more power to SSRs and national groups, and the steady rise in living conditions under the USSR/the sharp decline in living conditions after its dissolution.
And if you're serious about applying those same standards to every country, you'd see the U.S. as one of the most evil countries in the world. Our treatment of black Americans and American Indians was literally a model for the Nazis, and eclipses the scale and severity of even the most fevered anti-communist propaganda. We've fought wars of aggression all over the Global South. We've strangled popular anti-colonial movements in their crib and kept them down by backing murderous dictators. We illegally monitor as much of our citizens' communications as possible, have extrajudicially assassinated opposition leaders, have attempted to blackmail opposition leaders into killing themselves, violently repress even peaceful left-wing protests (while providing police escorts for Klan rallies and Proud Boys), hell, the Chicago PD was running a black site torture operation.
But I'm guessing you don't take that part seriously, otherwise you'd have questioned whether such an evil country -- that's militantly opposed every communist movement since before the USSR even existed -- is a reliable source on the shortcomings of communist states.
Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?
That was the question; it's quite clearly referring to preserving the USSR. Comparing that to the difference between the Romans and the EU is disingenuous and you know it.
And you noticed six SSRs boycotted it! But I thought the USSR "used military force to put down any rebellion from their puppet nations"? Which is it? Was dissent tolerated or not? Or, as in almost every country, were some types of dissent tolerated (local officials protesting national decisions) while other types were not (violent opposition to the state backed by hostile foreign governments)?
whataboutism
So you flat-out lied when you said you held all countries to the same standards. Holding all countries to the same standards involves discussing other countries to place actions in context (incidentally, this is a huge part of what passes for international law). It's not just shutting off your brain and screeching "whataboutism!" when someone asks you to acknowledge some things are bad even when your team does them.
reeeee'ing
Take this disgusting garbage back to and shit in your hat
The Soviet Empire directly occupied every constituent "Republic" as colonies, as well as occupied the Warsaw Pact countries as satellite vassals, and used military force to put down any rebellion from their puppet nations in the Warpac. They denied the people any say in government, subverted unions into agents of the state instead of advocates for the workers, and systematically crushed any domestic political dissent using secret police.
As to whether I'm okay with consistently applying that? Sure. The last time the US fought a military conflict in order to annex a nation into empire was 1902. The Soviets did it consistently throughout their empire's existence.
Much of what you're claiming is undermined by the fact that the vast majority of Soviet people voted to keep the USSR. How could that have happened if people had no say in the government, and if the SSRs were just colonies? It's also undermined by facts like the early USSR letting some former Russian vassals become independent (e.g., Finland), successive Soviet constitutions granting more and more power to SSRs and national groups, and the steady rise in living conditions under the USSR/the sharp decline in living conditions after its dissolution.
And if you're serious about applying those same standards to every country, you'd see the U.S. as one of the most evil countries in the world. Our treatment of black Americans and American Indians was literally a model for the Nazis, and eclipses the scale and severity of even the most fevered anti-communist propaganda. We've fought wars of aggression all over the Global South. We've strangled popular anti-colonial movements in their crib and kept them down by backing murderous dictators. We illegally monitor as much of our citizens' communications as possible, have extrajudicially assassinated opposition leaders, have attempted to blackmail opposition leaders into killing themselves, violently repress even peaceful left-wing protests (while providing police escorts for Klan rallies and Proud Boys), hell, the Chicago PD was running a black site torture operation.
But I'm guessing you don't take that part seriously, otherwise you'd have questioned whether such an evil country -- that's militantly opposed every communist movement since before the USSR even existed -- is a reliable source on the shortcomings of communist states.
Removed by mod
That was the question; it's quite clearly referring to preserving the USSR. Comparing that to the difference between the Romans and the EU is disingenuous and you know it.
And you noticed six SSRs boycotted it! But I thought the USSR "used military force to put down any rebellion from their puppet nations"? Which is it? Was dissent tolerated or not? Or, as in almost every country, were some types of dissent tolerated (local officials protesting national decisions) while other types were not (violent opposition to the state backed by hostile foreign governments)?
So you flat-out lied when you said you held all countries to the same standards. Holding all countries to the same standards involves discussing other countries to place actions in context (incidentally, this is a huge part of what passes for international law). It's not just shutting off your brain and screeching "whataboutism!" when someone asks you to acknowledge some things are bad even when your team does them.
Take this disgusting garbage back to
and shit in your hat
Ok fash whatever you say
Looks like you never left reddit in the first place
Na, you're still the nazi here
The Soviets liberated the death camps, nothing else really matters
This is what you call "intelligence agencies in a country I dislike"
cointelpro, mkultra, etc. etc.
Hell, just look at undercover cops and wiretaps.
gotta say I know this comes from brainworms but without context the name sounds cool
never want to use it cause its dumb but still