because the Red Army werent any better than the Nazis arguably. Neither were of course the Allies.

Of course they were are you fucking serious right now ?

Did the red army burn tens of thousands of villages many times with the people in it alive? Did it engage in rounding up millions of jews, Roma's and undesirables for industrial genocide? Did the red army engage in an aggressive genocidal war killing and starving tens of millions of civillians AS A POLICY ?

Of course the Red Army and the Allies engaged in civilian violence and rapes and war crimes through WW2. But saying "they arent any better" than the Nazi's is disgusting. Even the worst thing the red army did, the mass rapes in Germany and Berlin, are eclipsed by orders and orders of maginitude and scale by the equivalent the Nazi army did marching though eastern Europe and which it self doesnt register in the top of their attrocities.Its even disgusting to the millions of Jews the red army went out of its way and too hundreds of thousands of additional losses in order to evacuate from eastern Europe

Its not in the same stratosphere and its a logic that would lump any army ever as no better than the Nazi's .Everyone in WW1 ? As bad as Nazi army. The Vietcong and PLA in China .As bad as Nazis .

I dont care that its the "opinion of a lot that from that era" considering a lot of polland ,Hungary and countries that these views are primarily found had civilian populations filled to the brim with collaborators that cared little about the millions Nazi's burned and killed in their own country as long it was jews, romas or other eastern Europeans .

Engaging with it an adopting it as an "arguable" truth is in itself ahistorical and nazi apologia and honestly you should delete it or reword it cause there is a danger you get a justfiable for that opinion banned tho i dont believe you really mean it that way

In addition to this, as I mentioned in my other post, we should examine these positive experiences of pre-collapse USSR, and seek to understand them better. Because, sure one big part was social security, healthcare, education and the like. But other parts are absolutely fueled by reactionary conservatism about the time when the eurogays werent spreading their gender ideology. On a side note, an interesting Ive noticed among some people talking about the times back then is that things that are relatively normal now are stated as a downside of socialism back then, without them realizing that this same bad thing is even worse now, or things that if you think a little deeper are actually kinda good are stated as bad.

Actualy we do have data. Massive research for reasons behind the positive opinions. Nothing about "the gays and lgbts" as an important reason . The most reactionary big reason is usualy the one based on "we had a grand global standing and power" which is bad and nationalistic at face value but also can be interpreted in different ways for different people. Economic reasons, stability reasons, positive outlook for the future and optimism, people being more kinda and community spirit being stronger are the other massive ones. The only non fringe "socialy conservative" reason is usualy regarding the rise of drugs ,alcoholism and prostitution which seeing the form that surge took after the collapse is quite justifiable to see a reaction against those things from their POV