Operation Unthinkable . Could it really be pulled off by the US and British army in 1945? The Soviet army had more manpower than the US and UK combined at the time. Nukes won’t stop a Zerg rush.

yeah

>>64089952 (OP)
No.
West didn't have political will and control to start such war. Communists are our friends, remember?

>>64089952 (OP)
Yes and in a better timeline it occurred.

>>64089952 (OP)
No, most people in the West wanted the war to be over, and it would have taken an order magnitude of more men and equipment to pull it off

>>64089952 (OP)
>Could it really be pulled off by the US and British army in 1945?
Maybe to push the USSR back to its pre-1939 borders but then what? There's just miles and miles of Russia that you have to cross and there's nothing there worth having. As another anon pointed out the political will to launch an offensive against an "ally" likely wasn't there to support such an action. Maybe if the Soviets attacked first and triggered similar sentiment to the reaction to Pearl Harbor I could see it happening. But I think the Soviets knew they were reaching the limits of their manpower reserves, whereas the USA had legions of untapped potential.

Would the other allies be able to beat Russia in a straight fight? Undoubtedly yes. Their military was weak to begin with, further degraded by their massive losses, and without Lend-lease propping them up, would have been totally ineffectual.
Was there any political will to do so, and would the public or the enlisted have stood for it after 5 hard years of war? No chance.

>>64089952 (OP)
Discounting things like morale and homefront fatigue, yes. The SU was fairly stretched on manpower and materiel, and such a situation would see the loss of Allied industrial and economic support. It lacked decisive advantages in tactical aircraft and had no strategic aircraft worth anything. It lacked any meaningful naval assets and would be faced with the real risk of new frontlines opening up. Would it be easy? No. Could it be pulled off? Yes.

US and UK could have teamed up with the good guys and pulled it off easily.

in 1945 america was pretty uncontested with their air power and nukes
i think if the us nuked moscow it would turn the tide quickly

>>64090585
pretty much*

no. some would say it's...

the USSR could probably hold for a while but they were far too overextended, reliant on american lend lease for logistics, destroyed infrastructure in general, american air supremacy guaranteed and also tactical nuclear strikes
also, a looming famine in the ussr unless the soldiers get back home

>>64089952 (OP)
nuking moscow would have been enough

>>64090883
>just fly a lone bomber with your one nuke left through a thousand miles of unsuppressed airspace bro
yeah

>>64089952 (OP)
Yes but with a huge asterisk. Atomic bombs were a force multiplier beyond anything else, the Soviets basically couldn't have any force concentration, bases, hospitals, or logistical depots because they'd just be nuked. Also the Allies were at the peak of their military buildup, huge number of battletested veterans, and also Germans would have likely joined in as well to retake their East German clay. Plus Poles, Czechs, and so on all revolting.
HOWEVER, everyone was completely exhausted by war by 1945 so anyone who said "let's go for round 2" would not have been taken kindly. You'd have seen outright commie revolts throughout Europe and the US, even if these were easily put down the Soviets would just ramble on about "capitalist warmongers" forever.

>>64090905
Oh we're doing that thing where soviet supply lines and logistics are unaffected by going to war againat their main supplier but America suddenly finds itself hamstrung from multiple angles and incapable of maintaining it's astronomical industrial output for some reason.

>>64089952 (OP)
At the end of the war in europe, the USSR had 180 divisions deployed in central europe of which 40 were armored divisions while the Allies had 40 divisions in all of europe of which 8 were armored.

the soviets would have rolled well into france before the Allies could have stabilized the line

>>64089952 (OP)
Tbh yes. The soviet army was pretty fucked by that point. So I think if the western allies got serious uncle Joe would have suddenly decided that Poland and Czechoslovakia didn't need international socialism after all

>>64089952 (OP)
Neither side could really invade the other. The USSR had far more ground forces in europe, while the allies would absolutly dominate the sea and air. So mainland USSR wouldnt fall, and neither would the brit empire and naturally not the US. It would just be another euro bloodbath that fizzels out or ends up with US nukes.

>>64090905
yeah

>>64090962
They would've been nuked by France in Germany way before that though

>>64090952
No, we're doing that thing where you pretend that deep penetration raids are something you can just do at the drop of a hat. Apparently you need it spelled out that the USSR still had an air force in 1945, and that it wasn't completely swamped with intercept mission to the point where "probably a recon flight" wasn't worth the effort of intercepting. You're not getting one of the less than 5 nukes the US can get together in late '45 into Moscow without first winning the air war for a third time, against an enemy that now knows what a lone bomber can mean.

Can it be done, yes. But now you're asking for a major air campaign that's going to involve throwing that bomber force that just got done thinking it was over back into months of high-intensity operations, including about 300 miles round-trip outside of escort range. It took less than 6 months for the Cold War mentality to settle in, you do not have time to re-invigorate the armed forces for another round or develop a smaller bomb.

You stupid fucking niggers fundamentally fail to grasp the monumental scale of the things you ask for, and then have the utter fucking gall to ask with a straight face why nobody does it.

>>64091036
France didnt have nukes until 1960 you homosexual frog

>>64091037
Fly one from the baltic or finnish airspace and nuke St petersburg lol

>>64091037
Did the Soviets have a fighter capable of intercepting B29s in 1945?

>>64091092
Nope, its literally why they poured massive ammounts of money into developing that postwar. High altitude fights was pretty much only a thing between the germans and UK/US for the whole war.

>>64091107
So you start the war with a knockout sucker punch by nuking Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad and a few other key targets simultaneously, while dictating the terms of their surrender.

>USSR on the verge of demographic collapse in 1945
>United States on the verge of economic collapse in 1945
>United Kingdom already in a state of economic collapse in 1945

It just would have devolved into static trench warfare and ended with both sides signing an unsatisfactory armistice anyway

>>64091218
>United States on the verge of economic collapse in 1945

wut

>>64090962
Soviet divisions were much smaller than Western Divisions, both on paper and in actual combat strength.

>>64090905
Japan struggled intercepting B-29s flying in a straight line without any support, russia wouldn't even be able to touch them unless they graciously came down to their level.

>>64090962
>soviet divisions
what's the next cope tankie? "acshually a fireteam is a division because i said so"?

>>64089952 (OP)
No because US and UK wartime propaganda and policy has been that commies are their valiant and indispensable allies this entire time.

Turning around and declaring them the big bad after years of whitewashing and pouring money into them would not only fall flat but undermine the whole political structure they've created.

They could've justified an invasion around 1948 following the soviet occupation and upheaval of local governments in subsequent warsaw pact states but they clearly didn't care about that by that point.

>>64091236
War bonds don't pay out till the war is over, anon.

>>64089998
>Their military was weak to begin with, further degraded by their massive losses
1945 hombre, not 1942.

>>64089952 (OP)
In a vacuum, they could do it, the Soviet Union was strained after fighting an existential war and it would not be able to put up with more war against much less exhausted opponents. The problem though, is there would be no political will to go through with it, the people were tired of war and would be less than tolerant of the idea of going to war with people they had just spent years being told was their ally.

However, it's a different story if the Soviet Union is the aggressor. If America and Britain insisted on giving Europe a fair deal, and forced the issue of Poland, and Stalin chose to fight over it, that would be a valid casus belli, as it would come across to the western powers as the communists betraying them, rather than the other way around.

>>64089952 (OP)
>Nukes won’t stop a Zerg rush.
Nuking Moscow would have. Hell, firebombing Moscow would have. We had thousands of long range bombers and fighters and the Soviets simply could not have withstood that. Especially after we stopped giving them material aid

>>64091037
>Apparently you need it spelled out that the USSR still had an air force in 1945, and that it wasn't completely swamped with intercept mission to the point where "probably a recon flight" wasn't worth the effort of intercepting.
Their air force did not have the capacity to deal with high altitude bombing campaigns and was reliant on US fuel shipments to even fly the missions they did. A B29 would be in uncontested airspace over Persia and Alaska corridors.

>>64089952 (OP)
US had a wartime ban on strikes. It had to revert back from a war economy right away or the countries Unions would have imploded the country.

>>64091037
The Soviets had nothing that could counter the B-29 until the British handed them the MiG-15

>>64089952 (OP)
You have to be both a retard and a psychopath to consider this. Years of brutal warfare just to turn and fight one of your largest allies from that conflict.There would be no faster way to turn both the civilian populations and military against you.

Anticommunism rots brains and ironically benefits communism because all they ever do is jack off about killing countless people to stop an ideology they never even actually took the time to define or read. Liberalism has led to the best case scenario of the soviets dissolving without war and defanging anticapitalist movements worldwide because it actually improves conditions instead of hanging priests and butchering school girls

>>64092837
>Liberalism has led to the best case scenario of the soviets dissolving without war and defanging anticapitalist movements worldwide because it actually improves conditions instead of hanging priests and butchering school girls
It just promotes secularism and imports the third world to butcher school girls under the guise of multiculturalism and calls the people who have issue with this racist. It is a far softer, kinder totalitarianism. Please fuck off.

>>64092703
Why the fuck did post war Britian immediately get hit with the retard stick

There'd be an instant communist revolution in France and Italy and Europe would be integrally part of the Soviet Union

>>64090585
This, one nuke to moscow and one to St Petersburg and you're done. Would work even today.

>>64092926
You know soviets have bunkers right?

It's useless to raze Moscow just as its useless to raze Tokyo if you cant defeat them on the field

>>64089952 (OP)
In terms of weapons, manpower, tactics, and logistics, probably. But when you factor in individual mentality it turns into:
>Oh man, Hitler's dead and we took (West) Berlin, I sure am excited to finally go home and fuck my wife
>...the fuck you mean we're going to war with the Nazi-killing dudes I just shook hands with?
I think there would have been mass mutiny.

>>64092934
Oh man, bunkers!

>>64092985
Yes, if Stalin doesnt die by the nuke the soviet army keeps rolling to the Atlantic

And you've killed dozens of thousands of civilians so Europeans would side with the soviets

Wouldn't Yugoslavia and Albania fight on the Communist side?

>>64092989
>the soviet army keeps rolling to the Atlantic
With a logistics tail thats going to be a feast for the USAAF? Are you thinking the Soviets are going to be anywhere near as capable when theyre not being fed the vitals via lend lease and a veritable swarm of Mustangs, Thunderbolts and Superfortresses are molesting them?
>you've killed dozens of thousands of civilians so Europeans would side with the soviets
Yeah man everyone was so hyped for the gentle humanitarian Soviets to come rule them

>>64089952 (OP)
The US alone had close to 14 million people in uniform in WW2 and that was still a far lower percentage of our total available military-age male population than the other major combatants. We had untapped reserves of manpower in 1945. The Soviet Union absolutely did not. And you, if Lend-Lease had been cut off while fighting was going on, the USSR would have suddenly found it's manpower reserves had abruptly gone DEEP in to the negatives and they'd either have to demobilize hundreds and hundreds of thousands at a minimum in 1945 just to get a crop sown in 1946 or else the entire Red Army would collapse before the start of '47.

>>64092999
Yes they were hyped up, communists were the leaders of the resistance and when you got american beasts killing people for no reason the Soviets become even MORE of liberators

The logistics become trivial when you got a western Europe that will welcome soviets without putting a fight, meanwhile the anglo-americans needs to cross an ocean again + manage to hold Asia

>>64093029
ahahahaha
sorry man didn't realize it was a bit

>>64093033
The american brain breaks down when it realises its fantasies dont apply to reality

>>64093028
>they'd either have to demobilize hundreds and hundreds of thousands at a minimum in 1945 just to get a crop sown in 1946 or else the entire Red Army would collapse before the start of '47.
I'm pulling out of my ass either. In real-life the war ended in '45, WW3 didn't start, the Soviets were able to demobilize millions of men by the start of 1946, and they still had close to a million people die of famine in 1946-1947. An Operation Unthinkable scenario basically ends with the death of Russia as a concept without even considering what effect WW3 itself would have had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946%E2%80%931947

>>64093028
>they'd either have to demobilize hundreds and hundreds of thousands at a minimum in 1945 just to get a crop sown in 1946 or else the entire Red Army would collapse before the start of '47.
I'm not pulling that out of my ass either. In real-life the war ended in '45, WW3 didn't start, the Soviets were able to demobilize millions of men by the start of 1946, and they still had close to a million people die of famine in 1946-1947. An Operation Unthinkable scenario basically ends with the death of Russia as a concept without even considering what effect WW3 itself would have had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1946%E2%80%931947

>>64093050
Stalin wouldnt have exported food in this scenario though

>Between 1946 and 1948, a total of 5.7 million tons of grain (excluding cereals), were exported from the USSR

>>64093060
He would have because he didn't give a shit about his people, and cared only about profit.
>b-but he was a commie!
Capitalism consumes all ideologies and critique.

>>64093084
uh actually he exported it because he was a commie

The soviet Union feeding the Allies is killer propaganda

>>64092874
Stafford Cripps was a communist sympathizer who would have receiver a death penalty in the US for his disloyalty and treachery

>>64089952 (OP)
Yeah, especially if they used Eastern Europe manpower

>>64089965
The west had nukes and the soviets didn't. Operation Unthinkable would have disintegrated the soviet lines with nuclear hellfire.

>>64092837
You have to be both a retard and a psychopath not to consoder this. So basically a zigger.
russia at the time were ISIS with manpower, doing ISIS things.
They made the Nazis seem tame with their purges and ethnic cleansings. They brought back slavery in the russia.
Also they were already setting up to betray the West that saved them from utter and rightful annihilation.
Really not pushing them back to ziggeria borders let them rearm and plunder peoples they had no right to.

>>64093090
actually he exported it because he needed money.
In the mean time he was extorting the countries under the future Warsaw pact for you guessed it grain. Usually under the guise of occupation payments.In some cases he even killed friendly communist government ministers that dared to complain.
Now put two and two together from where the grain came.

>>64089952 (OP)
>Nukes won’t stop a Zerg rush.

Do you have any evidence that supports this statement?

>>64089952 (OP)
manpower means jack and shit degenerating into meat assault (like in ukraine 2025) without LOGISTICS. Vatnik union in 1945 was bombed to shit and could not really even feed itself without daddy americas hand outs. This is before the gross technological and industrial superiority of allies like b-29 bombers

Zigger union would have and should have been pounded to dust post berlin. WW2 was half assed and should have ended in 1947 with allied forces rolling into moscow. Vatniks did start the war together with the germans, italians and japanese after all. They deserved the same kind of atomization and reconstruction the other three got

Not finishing ziggers off in ww2 directly leads to todays world of monke, agent orange and regional war burning in east europe. In addition to the copius amounts of subversive propaganda that has poisoned the western thought for close to 80 years now. From marxist wannabe tyrants to todays "tradcon" fifth column grifters

>>64093730
also mainland china being occupied by the communist regime is a direct result of half assing ww2. Mao and his merry band of rats would have never graduated past mountain/steppe guerillas without vatnik union backing them up with gear and weapons. Even with all the corruption and incompetence going on with the nationalists at that time

Related to that Korea and Vietnam wars are also directly tied to that. Kim jong fats dynasty could have never established itself without stalins backing. Even if north Vietnam had its communist beginnings the idea that guided US into the war (domino theory) had no legs without maos china and CCCP up north

Bailing out vatnik union was the first disaster and the second one was not finishing it off after the germans were finished. vatniks are the biggest imperial cancerous tumor this planet has ever seen with its tentacles stretched across the globe

>>64093730
>>64093748
My alt history plan is a little more subtle. The Americans and Brits intentionally give the USSR as little as possible, so they can fight the Germans, but not well, and hopefully collapse. With a German occupation of everything up to the Urals, the Allies can then drive through after the war as liberators and install liberal democratic governments. Alternatively, Russians are bogged down in the east, and the German lines don't collapse. So then the Germs surrender to the Anglo-American allies, and the lines are drawn there. Cold War still happens, but the line of demarcation is in Poland or something.

Also: Putin.

It's funny he was portrayed as some kind of young reformer when he first took power, but he really was the KGB-mafia goon we now see him as. he never changed. He had a nostalgia for the USSR not for ideolgoical reasons, but because it was the biggest the Russian empire had ever gotten. As Mayor of St. Petersberg, he was the head of the Mafia for that city. What did they expect out of him?

The only way to get a reformer was someone who wasn't brought up as a true beliver in the system.

Also irony: word is Putin was part of a group who were robbing the state blind through KGB secret funds. Rather than spending it, they just pocketed it all and put it in off-shore banks, then when the USSR collapsed they swooped in with all this cash and bought up all the now privatized companies.

So he officially likes the USSR and considers its death a tragedy for Russia, but he was robbing from it and doing everything he could to undermine it. Is there no better pure Platonic form of a Russian leader than Putin?

>>64090905
you only need one bomber to make it

>>64092989
yeah im sure they would want to side with people that want to rape and kill them

>>64093029
>The logistics become trivial when you got a western Europe that will welcome soviets without putting a fight, meanwhile the anglo-americans needs to cross an ocean again + manage to hold Asia
indian or zigger?

>>64093570
>>64090585
Did you know that Operation Magic carpet had to be expedited to avoid mutinies worsening? Yes, there were several MUTINIES and strikes in the armed forces because guys just wanted to go home now that the job was done. The rate of demobilization in the United States was so rapid because of troops being done with soldiering, it functionally gutted the armed forces for it be still a problem when shit kicked off in Korea five years later.
Morale would've been fucking though the floor if you told them to initiate another war against an ally even stronger then the Nazis. Not to mention the chaos that'd erupt behind the lines. In France, for instance, where communists had just a moment ago been a major resistance player. And at home? Do you think people would continue working long hours to supply such a conflict, or would the be trouble from the highly unionized labor force of the day?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_demobilization_strikes
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/11/11/world-war-ii-mutiny-protests-veterans/

>>64093831
Yeah surely people voted for Communist parties in masse post-war because they wanted to be raped

Dumbass americoon

>>64093835
The war would be limited to Germany, you can just walk, once the soviets reach the Maginot line the war is over.
And the only harbour available for the Anglo-American would be Hamburg

>The Soviet army had more manpower
how much of that manpower would defect or shoot the gommies?

>>64093894
>or would the be trouble from the highly unionized labor force of the day?
vghh....

>>64092856
>not allowing us to implement population controls and state religions is totalitarian guys!!!!!

>>64093060
Anon he exported food despite millions dying of famine irl

The only way Unthinkable would be conceivable, is if Roosevelt And Churchill didn't buddy up with the Soviets in the first place.

>>64095571
Churchill knew it was a bad idea but Britain had lost all influence by 1944.
And Roosevelt loved Stalin, he probably fell for the Soviet propaganda.

Everyone who says "yes" should remember that the soviet army had enough resources to spare to launch operation august storm in manchuria, decisively destroying an admittedly poorly equipped, trained, supplied and deployed japanese kwangtung army.
The operation occurred over an area that coincides with the area of western europe.
>>64089970
got half of it right, it would've taken a literal order (10x) more manpower than what the western front allies had planned for (about 4.7 million men).

>could it
Yes
>would it have been easy?
No
>NOOKS?
Wouldn't have been needed but would likely make the entire thing a cake walk. Remember that both Churchill and Patton were for this but the OSS killed Patton and Eisenhower made Churchill kneel in exchange for money.

Additional reminder; Operation Unthinkable would never have needed to be considered had Eisenhower listened to Churchill who said that instead of a southern invasion of France that force should have landed in the Baltics (or was it the Balkans, I forget) and prevented USSR from annexing/influencing it. But Eisenhower in his infinite wisdom said the liberation of France was more important. So a huge army lands in southern France and faces nothing but token forces at best and most of the issues were literally just supplies and logistics. Thus cementing USSR hold over Eastern Europe for the next 45 years, the effects being seen to this day (go to east Germany and talk about the USSR near old boomer civil servants, they'll all shed a tear and start singing the Red Anthem).

>>64096463
I meant Roosevelt not Eisenhower.

>>64096411
>Britain had lost all influence by 1944
Nope. That was 10 years later.

>>64096426
I don't think the Soviets being able to destroy an underequipped, undertrained, undersupplied, and understaffed army of low quality troops and walking wounded that Japan could not reinforce because the USA was busy actively invading its territory counts for much.

>>64096411
>Roosevelt loved Stalin, he probably fell for the Soviet propaganda.

Roosevelt was a communist through and through. His new deal policies were straight up communist central planning theft of private property and all (Theft of US citizens gold and outlawing ownership) A few of the new deal things were unquestionably positive like public works and water towers but its still debated whether overall they helped end or prolong the great depression. And then when WW2 hits its no surprise he goes all in on keeping the Soviet regime alive.

We should have just continued the march towards outright hegemony instead of this gay obvious version where Russians and Chinese pretend they matter.
>American passport allows you free travel and no taxes anywhere
>Annual tribute from our vassal states
>France turned into an amusement park
>Foreign women pleading for American seed so they can afford basic health care
>The Kremlin burned
>The pyramids ripped down
>The Great Wall turned into a formula 1 track
>Canada nuked
>The Eiffel Tower torn down and dumped into the sea
>Rome sacked
The based timeline did not choose us bros.

>>64096470
at a bare minimum it demonstrates that the soviets were not the molasses, giant mass of human meat that give off the impression of slow and uncoordinated, who advanced on germany only through sheer numeric superiority (which they definitely had in their favor if the allies were to remain at 47 divisions).
It should also be mentioned that the forces sent to manchuria were troops that the soviets spared precisely because they knew the troops left in germany could fend off any western allies aggression (short of muh nooks). Stalin is many things, dumb enough to fall for an empty non-aggression pact twice is pushing it.

>>64095516
but not during war

>>64092989
It took the USSR more than 2 years to barely take back the territory Germany, a Nation half the size of Texas, took from them in six months.

The that was while Germany was fighting a ware on other fronts and being strategic bombed to shit.

The notion they are going to steamroll the western allies, who are infinitely better supplied and capable, while they are suddenly the ones on the receiving end the strategic bombing, is absolutely comical.

>>64096878
It took the US more than 2 years to barely take back the territory Japan, a nation half the size of Florida, took from them in 6 months.
Redditspacing
The hurrdurr was while japan was fighting two other warehouses on other fronts and being strategic bombed to shit.
Redditspacing
The notion they are going to steamroll the Red Army, who are infinitely better coordinated and capable, while they are suddenly the ones on the receiving end the numeric disadvantage, is absolutely comical.

>>64095506
>do not question the secular state you racist, science denying conspiracy theorist
Importing squatamalans by the literal truck load is population control. Telling people it isn't is authoritarian propaganda. Liberalism is just rationalizing its totalitarian tendencies. Sucks you're on the propaganda spewing end.

>>64091037
>”we won the war and defeated the nazis, comrades! We are sending a diplomatic plane containing cookies or whatever”
>nuke the shit out of moscow

>>64089952 (OP)
Poland was on Soviet side tho, it should say American, British, Canadian and French divisions.

>>64089952 (OP)
>Nukes won’t stop a Zerg rush.
They stop a moscow and a St.Petersberg nicely though and what can they do about the UK, it's a fucking island.

>>64089965
>West didn't have political will and control to start such war.
You have no idea how despised communists and kremlin dictators and their quislings are in free nations, then or now.

>>64096906
Yeah, it took the US two years, only they were crossing the Pacific and purposely skipping islands.

Oh yeah....they didn't lose 10 million soldiers doing it either.

Citing "numerical advantage" is hilarious considering how badly they got fucked up by Germany despite this. If they were "coordinated and capable" they wouldn't have lost 4 men for every 1 German they killed.

lmao.

>>64097036
If you can clap Stalin and much of the inner circle there's a fair chance that when you come in swinging their army won't do shit because everyone will be busy fighting over who's supposed to be next in line.

>>64091037
>But now you're asking for a major air campaign that's going to involve throwing that bomber force that just got done thinking it was over back into months of high-intensity operations,

Lmao, but imagine how Soviet infantry would feel...then imagine how they would feel when the famine comes.

>>64089952 (OP)
As others have said, militarily possible, politically impossible.
I think most western nations would have been dealing with insurgencies if they decided to follow WW2 with another war against an "ally".

>>64096507
Ah yes, Formula 1, the famous American motorsport. You are brown.

>>64099999
>>65000000

>>64100231
Shit, I'm retarded.
>>64100000

>>64089952 (OP)
No.
>Communications stretched and heavily damaged by the war
>Soldiers tired
>Germans are going to go all ways fighting for and against anyone
>Communist saboteurs in Italy, France, China, Korea, Vietnam and main allied nations would be doing as much shit as OUN, Forest Brothers and AK would be doing on Soviet territory
>Civilians throughout the Europe wanting for peace and possibly starving
>Baltic and North Sea being so stuffed with sea mines, little military operations would be possible
>Political mindset of the domestic masses in need for changing
>No enough nukes

>>64097014
>If you're against the Church worming its way into your life and forcing you to do what they say, you're a totalitarian.
You evangelist retards can't go extinct fast enough.

>>64092856
Capitalism is what imports people from the third world so they can wage-squeeze. Under Liberal wage schemes companies should actually pay fair wages to everyone and anyone so would get no benefit by importing foreigners because they'd have to pay them the same as they would any domestic worker. But sure, run through that old Capitalist trick of causing the problem then blaming it on others.

>>64101672
That's under Corpratism which has achieved paradigm under the purview of Neoliberal economics (starting in the the 70s/80s) while masquerading as Capitalism.

>>64089952 (OP)
>pictured in red: Russia's borders in 2026