‘The political desperadoes and ignoramuses, who say they would “Rather be Dead than Red”, should be told that no one will stop them from committing suicide, but they have no right to provoke a third world war.’ — Morris Kominsky, 1970
I remember watching my half‐sister play Active Worlds all the way back during the dot com boom, and aside from the lack of virtual reality it sounds like it was almost identical to this: level‐building, character creation, custom textures and models, vanities like pubs and rollercoaster rides, but it had a substantially larger userbase and consequently more content. (It probably even looked better than this, too.)
That was a little over two decades ago. It should be no surprise to anybody that this latest entry in the glorified chatroom genre was dead on arrival: the only new thing that it brings is the virtual reality aspect, which isn’t good enough and just makes accessing this product more expensive.
Everything else that this offers has already been done and done better in Active Worlds, Second Life, Roblox, and other glorified chatrooms that have more than umpteen times the content of this gimmicky crap. They don’t even care enough to moderate it properly!
It would be awesome if this bankrupted Meta, but I’m sad to say that they’ll probably have to do a lot worse than this. Maybe Elon Musk can give Meta a few pointers—or seize it himself.
If anticommunists are going to openly memorialize somebody like this, then I honestly have no idea what’s stopping them from doing the same for Adolf Schicklgruber. Other than, I suppose, his army’s violence against other Westerners.
As obnoxiously inconsiderate as he is, beating a child is never a good approach to take.
Doing a report on this would have a deeper and longer lasting effect on him.
Good grief… if the U.S.S.R. was the Reich’s ‘ally’ then so was Poland, France, the United Kingdom, and every other piss bucket in Europe.
To quote my thesis:
It was no doubt disgraceful that Soviet Russia should make any agreement with the leading Fascist state; but this reproach came ill from the statesmen who went to Munich. […] [The German–Soviet] pact contained none of the fulsome expressions of friendship which Chamberlain had put into the Anglo–German declaration on the day after the Munich conference.
Indeed Stalin rejected any such expressions: “the Soviet Government could not suddenly present to the public German–Soviet assurances of friendship after they had been covered with buckets of filth by the [Fascist] Government for six years.” The pact was neither an alliance nor an agreement for the partition of Poland. Munich had been a true alliance for partition: the British and French dictated partition to the Czechs. The Soviet government undertook no such action against the Poles.
They merely promised to remain neutral, which is what the Poles had always asked them to do and which Western policy implied also. More than this, the agreement was in the last resort anti‐German: it limited the German advance eastwards in case of war, as Winston Churchill emphasized. […] [With the pact, the Soviets hoped to ward] off what they had most dreaded—a united capitalist attack on Soviet Russia. […] It is difficult to see what other course Soviet Russia could have followed.
— A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War
The Kremlin wasn’t staffed with amnesiacs; they had the common sense to know that the capitalists were going to reinvade Soviet Eurasia. The question was when; intelligence reports were often contradictory, which was why Moscow hesitated before fighting back.
[I]t was impossible not to miscalculate. How could you know when the enemy would attack? We knew we would have to deal with him, but on what day or even what month. […] We are blamed because we ignored our intelligence. Yes, they warned us. But if we had heeded them, had given Hitler the slightest excuse, he would have attacked us earlier.
We knew the war was coming soon, that we were weaker than Germany, that we would have to retreat. The question was, retreat to where—to Smolensk or to Moscow, that’s what we discussed before the war.
We knew we would have to retreat, and we needed as much territory as possible. We did everything to postpone the war. And we succeeded—for a year and ten months. We wished it could have been longer, of course. Stalin reckoned before the war that only in 1943 would we be able to meet the Germans as equals.
On the whole, everyone expected the war would come and it would be difficult, impossible for us to avoid it. We delayed it for a year, for a year and a half. If Hitler had attacked us half a year earlier, you know, bearing in mind our situation then, it would have been very dangerous.
So it was impossible to begin obvious preparations without revealing to German intelligence that we were planning serious measures. We took many serious steps, but still not enough. We didn’t have time to finish very much. Some think Stalin should have to answer for all this. But there was the people’s commissar for defense, the chief of the general staff…
Also, that Wikipedia link does not support the Redditor’s claim.
Yes and no:
The Chetniks […] were fighting the partisans often with more vigor than the Axis. They also would negotiate ceasefires with the Italians. They also at times made alliances with the Ustaše and Nazis against the partisans, and at times in alliance with the partisans against the [F]ascists.
To any commie saying that it was good that German POWs were treated terribly in Soviet captivity
It’s interesting how this comment is addressed to ‘any commie’ — as if Jews, Roma, gay folks, transgender people, the disabled, the houseless, and others, cannot be expected to share the same indifference towards their oppressors suffering.
it’s also sad that many others would never have this opportunity.
Somehow, I get the feeling that the author of this reply was not thinking about the dozens of millions of Soviets who lost relatives to Axis forces.
As is usual with anticommunists, that author’s attempt at describing history is comparable to Christopher Duntsch’s surgical procedures: all the care and precision of a small child playing with tinker toys. To start:
Tito didnt send any hit squats [sic] to find these Ustase unless he wanted to eliminate someone he thought threatened his authoritarian rule at home.
The implication here that Tito never would have thought that the Ustaše would threaten his ‘authoritarian rule’ (as opposed to libertarian rule) is such illogical nonsense that hopefully no refutation is needed on that.
On 13 May 1945 Tito sent a message to his First Army: ‘A group of Ustashi and some Chetniks, a total of over 50,000 men, is reported by the Third Army in the Konjice-Sotanj area. It includes Pavelic […] and a huge number of criminals. They are attempting to cross at Dravograd and give themselves up to the British.’ Tito issued the order for their ‘annihilation’, but some twelve thousand anti-communist Serbs, including many Chetniks in German uniforms, reached Allied headquarters.
Following in Pavelic’s wake were a number of senior Ustashi who made it to a safe base near Salzburg. Wanted for ‘war crimes’ by the Yugoslav authorities, according to Mark Aarons and John Loftus, they included:
- Stejpan Hefer, regional governor-general of Baranja, where he was responsible for the slaughter of Serbs and the deportation of Jews by terror squads.
- Ljbo Milos, a senior official at the Jasenovac concentration camp, where his speciality had been the ‘ritual killing’ of Jews, using a knife to cut their throats and to slice open their stomachs.
- Dr Vjekoslav Vrancic, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and undersecretary in the Interior Ministry; wanted for administering the camps.
- Veliko Pecnikar, head of the Poglavnik’s personal bodyguard and also commander of the brutal Gendarmerie which worked in close collaboration with the Gestapo.
- Bozidar Kavran, commander of Pavelic’s headquarters and a trusted aide.
- Srecko Rover, implicated in a plot to assassinate Yugoslavia’s King Peter. He held a senior position in Pavelic’s personal bodyguard.
- Lovro Susie, Minister of Corporations, who worked closely with the Nazis on the deportations for forced labour in Germany and later served with the SS Division Prince Eugen.
- Father Josip Bujanovic, a Croat priest party to the massacre of Orthodox peasants.
The British Army in Austria, under the command of Field Marshal Alexander, initially disarmed the Ustashi and, in late May 1945, surrendered to Tito’s forces, quite legitimately, around 18,500 Chetniks, Ustashi, Slovenian White Guards and Domobrans. In the near-civil war that followed in Yugoslavia, a great many atrocities were committed. The killings were, a senior member of Tito’s Politburo admitted, ‘sheer frenzy’.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
tens of thousands of innocent people
This is what you sound like right now.
only concentration camp in post war Europe
The Kingdom of Sweden kept running one of these after 1945. Perhaps more obviously, though, the Allies frequently recycled Axis camps (like Dachau) and did not fully disestablish them until years afterwards.
Tito definitely didnt [sic] kill any Bulgarian fascists either considering he had a very good relationship with George Dimitrov
Dimitrov, being the chap who famously defined fascism as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialistic elements of finance capital”, would have been most unlikely to have any objections to somebody executing fascists, whether they shared his nationality or not. Also, there’s no ‘definitely’ regarding Tito’s (indirect) involvement in the killing of Bulgarian fascists:
Tito, however, refused to sanction the loss of Macedonia; in fact he had hopes of extending his own control to embrace Pirin (Bulgarian) Macedonia. Near the end of May 1941, he sent Lazar Kolishevski, a Macedonian, to take control of the Macedonian Party from Shark and to organize armed resistance to the Bulgarian occupation.
Tito made an alliance with the Bulgarians who were killing us for three years. None of them faced justice.
As Romania changed sides, seeing the way the wind of war was blowing, Bulgaria declared her neutrality on 23 August 1944 and announced that she was withdrawing from the war. In spite of that, on 8 September 1944, Soviet troops entered Bulgaria; Bulgaria now declared war on Germany. Bogdan Filov and Prince Kyrill were condemned to death by a “people’s court” and executed in February 1945.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
Their enforced wait upon the wishes, or the whims, of Stalin provided some opportunity for the Yugoslav mission to observe the Soviet Union at war and enabled them to clear up at least one mystery. What puzzled the Yugoslavs was where all the men had come from to form the ‘Yugoslav Anti-Fascist Brigade’, when so many of the Yugoslav communists resident in the Soviet Union had perished long before in the purges.
Djilas discovered that the Brigade was manned largely by the collaborationist Croats from the ill-fated regiment sent by Ante Pavelic to serve on the Eastern Front. Like the Rumanians, Italians and Hungarians, the Croat soldiers along with their commander Mesic were sucked into the catastrophe of Stalingrad, taken prisoner and politically re-educated, to emerge as the ‘Anti-Fascist Brigade’, officered by Russians and with a few émigré Communists providing the political staff.
It was even proposed that these mongrelly soldiers should wear the insignia of the Royal Yugoslav Army until Veljko Vlahovic protested and med to devise a matching emblem with Tito’s partisans, though he was hampered in never having seen the original. On finding the same commander still at the head of this regiment Djilas apparently could not restrain his criticism, a point the Russians blandly brushed aside by saying that Mesic had ‘recanted’; there was nothing for the Yugoslav mission to do but leave ‘everything as it was’.
But I’ll admit, I would be quite reluctant to trust anticommies to clean up a mess that they made. Evidently, so were the Yugoslav communists.
SS Handzar Divison from Bosnia (Bosnian‐Muslims working directly for the Nazis) were granted amnesty by the communists and allowed to join the Partisans.
As the war situation worsened in the winter of 1943–4, increasing numbers of Muslims joined their ranks, though the proportion of Muslims in Tito’s ranks should not be overestimated. In spring 1944, according to Tito’s own assessment, only 2.5 per cent of his men were Muslims. A first Muslim partisan unit had already been formed in the summer of 1941, and Marshal Tito willingly repeated Moscow’s religious wartime propaganda that portrayed communism as the only hope for Islam.
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from that one.
killing Serbian families who were anti communist.
If only I could show you the things that I’ve seen…
spies of Tito who only killed milk men and taxi drivers in the diaspora.
The EU-MIFID II survey data show that overall, 54% of Roma in Slovakia felt discriminated against because of their Roma origins in the last five years in at least one area of life and 30% in the past twelve months. Most Roma feel discriminated against when they are looking for work. This is consistent with the findings of the Institute of Financial Policy (2014), which showed that applicants with Roma names had less than half the chance of being invited to a job interview than participants with non-Roma names, even though both […] Roma and non-Roma shared the same personal and professional characteristics, including educational attainment.
(1) The Roma youth are exposed to social exclusion due to their ethnic identity during the employment process and are therefore forced to work in temporary jobs. (2) The young Roma experience social exclusion, especially in job applications. (3) The Roma identity and the stigmatized neighborhoods associated with this identity lead to problems for Roma youth in job applications or working life. (4) The attitudes of Roma youth oriented social exclusion in employment vary according to the level of education.
But perhaps we should instead trust the general impressions of Dr. Tiso here over the work of actual researchers.
Many of these ethnocidal anticommunists may have indeed contributed in hopes of eventually being rewarded with national independence, but their nation‐states most likely would have assumed the form of anticommunist dictatorships as they had been before the 1940s.
…but I find it pretty telling how that chapter’s author gives examples of Soviet suppression as justifications for Baltic anticommunism, but doesn’t use the anticommunist régimes’ blatantly antidemocratic behavior to explain Soviet suppression.
a certain political ideology has managed to kill 100 million people in a century
That subcommunity is just… depressing to read. They love repeatedly equating ‘tankies’ with neofascists, but don’t bother subjecting the former to class analysis and making a concerted effort to understand why anybody would turn to supporting the USSR and the PRC.
Let me give you an example. In this article about propertarians becoming alt‐right, there is class analysis (propertarians are quite often white, male, and petty‐bourgeois), and there is an explanation as to why propertarians to frequently become alt‐right: neofascism’s aggression suits many propertarian demands well. That is an analysis; an etiology.
Never have I seen anybody make an analysis even comparable to that in the case of ‘tankies’. The class background of this crowd goes entirely unmentioned, and more importantly, they never explain why people become ‘tankies’ in the first place.
The closest thing to that that you’ll see is this:
I think a lot of them are in it for the aesthetics and are fundamentally unserious and immature people who don’t know and especially don’t care about the meanings of the things they’re saying
And that is all that they’ve got.
I couldn’t agree more! This is like a Czech politician in 1938 denouncing German atrocities when the Czechs were committing far worse atrocities against the Germans in Sudetenland!
I mean, FFS, every German with whom I’ve spoken assured me that the Czech atrocities were real! Huh? What you mean they’re all ‘petty‐bourgeois’ and ‘members of the Anti‐Komintern’? What does that have to do with anything‽
Even if this rumor be true (Hakim mentioned this once, heh), it would have not one iota of relevance to the fact that the Fascists were vicious anticommunists who arrested hundreds of thousands of suspected communists in the 1930s and massacred millions in the 1940s.
But it looks like anticommies have decided that Mussolini being an ex‐socialist and Goebbels being a former communist sympathizer are a thousand times more important than the deaths of 27 million Soviets (whose deaths, by the way, were entirely our faults; to even insinuate that anticommunists had anything whatsoever to do with those would be not only absurd but completely unfair!!!).
Speaking of those presumed historians:
Eric Weitz, who is by no means an opponent of comparing the Soviet and Nazi régimes, attributes to [Stéphane] Courtois the same (in)famous rôle as that played in the West by Ernst Nolte, the chief trivializer of Nazi régime crimes by deflection of guilt to Lenin and Stalin’s Russia. Both historians, he writes, “engaged in polemics that masked as scholarship.”
Let us examine a few examples among many. On 7 March 1998, Floricel Marinescu, a Romanian historian with links with the previous régime, was writing in Aldine (a supplement of the daily România liberă) : “from the strict quantitative perspective, the number of crimes perpetrated in the name of communist ideology is much larger than that of those perpetrated in the name of Nazi or similar ideologically-minded regimes.”
Unlike President Emil Constantinescu, who had apologized for his country’s rôle during the Holocaust during a recent visit to Washington, Marinescu wrote, “no prominent Jewish personality [from Romania] has apologized for the role that some Jews have played in undermining Romanian statehood, in the country’s Bolshevization, in the crimes and the atrocities committed [by them]. Proportionally speaking, the Romanians and Romania suffered more at the hands of the communist regime, whose coming the Jews had made an important contribution to, than the Jews themselves had suffered from the Romanian state during the Antonescu regime. […] The Red Holocaust was incomparably more grave than Nazism.”
(Emphasis added. Source.)
innocent men, women, and children
You mean the White Army, Axis collaborators, and millions of hypothetical babies, carelessly lumped in with famine victims, whom the Communists struggled to save with food aid?
Advice for novice socialists: don’t expect a coherent and helpful answer to that question. The average anticommunist explains history in the same way that Christopher Duntsch performed surgery. For evidence, see here.
the term is misunderstood to mean that, as the chosen people, the Jews think they are better than everyone else. God singles out people—assigns the Jewish people—to announce to humanity that (1) every human being is chosen for a task that no other human being can perform and (2) every soul that enters creation is indispensable to all of creation. The Jews are chosen to say to the world, “Each of us is summoned to an absolute responsibility to God for how we treat our neighbor,” and this absolute responsibility includes risking death for the sake of our neighbor, as the Righteous among the Nations did during the Shoah. The exceptionalism here is not about privilege or superiority; it is about the obligation and the responsibility that define humanity. It is about the cry of “Here I am for you!” to the human outcry all around us, a cry for which I am singled out.
Please try to avoid generalizing Judaists and their beliefs; don’t conflate right‐wing Judaists with devout Judaists.
The U.S. School That Trains Dictators & Death Squads
Resources on SOA/WHINSEC graduates
The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas
the Death Squads of El Salvador
Top 10 US-Backed Atrocities and Authoritarian Regimes (partly off‐topic; try youtube-dl if the video doesn’t work)
The Argentine Military and the Antisubversivo Genocide: The School of Americas’ Contribution to the French Counterinsurgency Model
‘Many officers who passed through SOA were later involved in coups, military rebellion, and serious human rights violations. These included some who became dictators in Argentina (Leopoldo Galtieri), Bolivia (Hugo Banzer), Ecuador (Guillermo Rodríguez), Panama, (Manuel Noriega), Peru (Juan Velasco Alvarado), and others active in high-profile political murders, such as two of the three officers involved in assassinating Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador in 1979.’ (source)
I don’t even know half of shit on the left💀
This looks like a job for Anarcho‐Bolshevik!
From left‐to‐right, top‐to‐bottom:
U.S. flag, flag of the Russian opposition to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Polish flag (with coat of arms), emblem of the Ukrainian ‘Kraken’ unit, symbol of the 15. Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS, Vatican City flag, symbol of the 19. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS, Ukrainian flag, Georgian flag, emblem of the Georgian Legion, ‘anarcho‐capitalist’ (read: neofeudalist) flag, ecofascist flag, flag of Brazil’s Southern Independence Movement, Hoppean variant of the ‘Anti-Communist Action’ flag, São Paulo separatist flag, flag of the Empire of Japan, emblem of the azov-prykarpattia battalion, flag of Lithuania, emblem of Ukraine’s Tornado Battalion, Azov Batallion emblem, Taiwanese flag (or maybe the Reorganized National Government’s flag, heh heh), Latvian flag, and Estonian flag.
By the way, I found most of these through this website.
Know the enemy. That’s my motto.
By the summer of 1948 Truman and [George] Marshall had delegated personal responsibility for political oversight of all peacetime clandestine operations to George Kennan, according to a later Senate investigation of U.S. foreign intelligence activities. […] Key members of Kennan’s Policy Planning Staff—officially a somewhat egg-headed institution dedicated to planning U.S. strategy for ten or twenty years in the future—were detailed to help him with this task. […]
A new stage in the American effort to use ex-Nazis began. The early “tactical” or short-term utilization of former Fascists and collaborators—techniques somewhat akin to the exploitation of prisoners of war by intelligence agents—gradually came to an end. American agencies and policymakers replaced the tactical approach with a deeper “strategic” appreciation of the usefulness that émigré groups might have in large-scale clandestine operations against the USSR. The U.S. government increasingly accepted the exiles’ organizations as legitimate and began to pour substantial amounts of money into them—at least $5 million in 1948 alone, and probably considerably more.
(From Christopher Simpson’s Blowback.)
The United States would provide Spain with the “opportunity […] to develop its resources and play a normal part in the revival of world commerce and industry.” The final outcome was to be a friendly relationship with Spain “in the event of international conflict.” The proposals were approved by [George] Marshall and Truman in January 1948.
Although President Truman was never fully comfortable about dealing with Franco and the British and the French strongly objected, the State Department and the military, particularly Generals Marshall and Omar Bradley, were adamant about obtaining air and naval bases in Spain.
(David F. Schmitz’s Thank God They’re on Our Side.)
In return for lowering barriers to US exports, Washington financed a massive programme of financial credits to war-torn countries. ‘The United States could not passively sanction the employment of capital raised within the United States for ends contrary to our major policies or interests’, said the State Department’s Herbert Feis in 1944. ‘Capital is a form of power.’ The post-war program of Marshall Plan loans and grants to countries made this explicit. ‘Benefits under [the Marshall Plan] will come to an abrupt end in any country that votes Communism to power’, said General George Marshall, President Truman’s secretary of state and the aid program’s namesake.
(Chris Bambery’s The Second World War. Emphasis added in all cases.)
For some reason lately I’ve been fretting over something in particular that I said several years ago. I wrote ‘Third Reich analogies are shit and they should not be necessary to get a point across.’ I kind of regret saying that; I feel like it was too harsh and I only said it because I was angry at the time.
While I agree that Reich analogies can be a crude way of getting a point across (being rhetorical shortcuts) and I prefer that nobody overuse them (like the right does), I don’t want anybody to scorn lower‐class people for using them against their oppressors either. In general, I believe that the ways in which we respond to our oppression should preferably not be controlled; that can only make an unpleasant situation worse, and anyway, we have legitimate grievances.
At one point in 2020 I became acquainted with a communist on Twitter who compared the U.S. police force to the Wehrmacht. I found that inaccurate, personally, but given how the police oppress us I didn’t bother nitpicking. In fact, it was a nice opportunity for me to share examples of antisemitic neofascists in the police force.
What pisses me off is when somebody equates the oppressed (e.g., Palestinians, lower‐class communists) with the Reich instead. That is when the analogies go from being mildly questionable to enraging and make me regret the very phenomenon of Godwin’s law. On the other hand, that is probably a slight overreaction on my part.
What do you think? Am I being too hard on myself?
If people actually learn history from the perspective of people who were there
I can find adults who lived in the Eastern Bloc too, and guess what? They’re still Communist sympathizers. You want a fucking medal or something?
I despise all dictatorships of the upper classes and even I am not so mindless as to believe that more than 95% of their populations hate every second that they spend living under them.
Adrian Carton de Wiart, an aristocratic bellicist who fought for the British Empire.
Postbellum European internment camps (not just Yugoslavia’s) had low living standards, and anticommunists see that as evidence for the bigoted extermination of Germans and Italians…rather than the fact that maybe war and occupation tend to force a general decrease in living standards, for obvious reasons.
The majority of the ethnic Germans who fled or were expelled from Eastern and Central Europe expellees lived in communities that had existed in territories in the eastern parts of Germany, such as East and West Prussia, East Pomerania, East Brandenburg, and Silesia, for centuries. Others comprised similarly long-established minority populations in various areas of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, Russia, and the Baltic states. In 1939, these ethnic Germans totaled approximately 18 million. Part of Hitler’s efforts to expand the Third Reich included consolidating this diasporic German population. The [anticommunist] régime sought to create more Lebensraum (living space) for Germans. As Hitler annexed and occupied territories across Europe, he sought to bring the Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans) living throughout Central and Eastern Europe “home to the Reich.” Between 1939 and 1944, approximately one million Germans moved to these areas. These resettlements were accompanied by efforts to “purify” these regions of Jews, Poles and other populations targeted by the [Axis].
[Anticommunist] efforts to ethnically cleanse these regions of certain populations and repopulate them with Germans directly led to the flight and expulsion of Germans from these areas after the war.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
Germans who could confirm that they had actively aided the Allies, or at least were citizens of neutral states, were seen as trustworthy and could avoid expulsion; this alone complicates the simplistic ‘anti‐German ethnic cleansing’ narrative. Unfortunately, these people were the minority, not only because Allied collaboration was risky, but also because, as the quoted text indicates, Berlin appealed to foreign Germans on an ethnic basis. Consequently, the majority of Germans were Axis sympathizers, and often profited handsomely from Fascism.
Some anticommunists point to the young expellees as further proof that the expulsions were ethnically motivated, but I think that the obvious explanation (obvious except to anticommunists, apparently) is that forcibly separating kids from their families would have been traumatic and far worse than keeping innocents together with their untrustworthy parents. Instead, anticommunists like to emphasize the lack of trials and the inclusions of women, children, and the elderly, implying or suggesting that the internments and expulsions were all simply forms of collective punishment.
Finally, I’d like to add that I noticed that a lot of the people, websites (IHR, DavidDuke, Revisionist, &c.), and organizations promoting the ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘collective punishment’ narratives are either neofascist or closely tied to former Axis personnel, and like to explicitly or implicitly equate the persecution of millions of suspected Axis collaborators with the Shoah…I’ll let you draw your own conclusions from that one.
ethnicly cleansed minorities (Germans, Italians etc.)
Because, if you think about it, we really only have ourselves to blame if anticommies prefer to keep their settlers, armies, and (often petty‐bourgeois or upper‐class) collaborators as ethnically homogeneous as possible. Now, please ignore the Italian and German emigrants to the SFRY, don’t look for Italian and German communists and definitely don’t ask them for their thoughts on the subject; they aren’t convenient for my simplistic ‘ethnic cleansing’ narrative.
Evidently, the founders of the U.S. never got the message.