On Eastern and Western Mentality

That was more due to the fact that Kim did not attempt any dramatic change to the policy.

Dubcek did try altering policy and run country more like a Western European country across his borders, for example Austria or West Germany. That eventually attracted the invasion of USSR and Warsaw Pact.

In contrast all three Kims stick close to Soviet blueprint even after USSR no more. They have South Korea across their borders, however despite it being much more prosperous, they do not try to be like them. Some might say that it's because he is afraid to lose power in free elections.

Also, I do not think Yugoslavia was all that independent. They just pretended to not be with USSR so that they can manipulate non-Align movement and make it secretly pro-Soviet. Core of Yugoslavia was Serbia, and it stays stubbornly pro-Russian even if that attracts criticism from the US and European Union.

There is difference in assumption too.

Dubcek assumed that he and his people are free to run their country how its best for them. USSR went to show them its not and if their big neighbor is not happy, they can make things ugly and change leaders in Prague. That realization and invasion actually made Czechs hate USSR. That is why when USSR was collapsing in 1989, Czechs and the rest of Warsaw Pact ditched communism and went democratic. They still celebrate is as freedom.

Kim's on the other hand assume that China and USSR have to be appeased and kept happy in the first place. However, in a way it was the same for Korea during Chinese Empire time, they used to appease Chinese back then and continued afterwards. China in turn continued their goodwill towards them.

I guess this is a difference in Western and Eastern psychology. Do what is best for your vs being on a lookout for big neighbor.

Whole Warsaw Pact sit and waited for USSR to crook so that they could be free again. Many crossed the infamous Berlin Wall to be in the West and not be subject of this Soviet interference.

Or maybe not, Some defect from north Korea to south one. To freedom and prosperity or maybe there are some other reasons.

However, for example Japan on their islands likely to feel freer in that regard. China and even Mongols could not reach them, so they have no need to appease them.

Are the rest of the Asians hate them because they envy this security and freedom from China's influence, or there is some other reason?

However, they could instead hate China for telling them what to do.

Final note. That is also why Western men want Asian girlfriend over Western One. It seems Asian girl is more likely to work hard to please them, rather than do what she wants like Western one.

On Freedom or Lack of in USSR

Some people like to praise Gorbachev for introducing freedom in the USSR. While he indeed passed some reforms aimed at reducing censorship and allowing private businesses, impact on wider population was limited. Overall, he is not remembered in former-USSR as a person who made life freer. That is how Americans like to see him. In former USSR Gorbachev is mostly remembered for making shelfs of grocery stores empty. 

If anything, more people would credit Yeltsin with liberalization than Gorbachev, even if Yeltsin legacy is also much more complicated than that. None of them were simple enough to define with one signature policy like Obama with his Obamacare.

However, how free or not free USSR really was?

USSR had three to four different periods with different levels of freedom.

First Period

First was the shortest, just between the end of Civil War and 1929. 

That was the freest period of USSR. Landlords were exterminated and lands were given to peasants to work them as they see fit. Industrial plants and factories were ceased by employees and were managed partly as government owned business, partly as co-op. It was the only period in USSR when it was possible to start own business. Censorship was low, it was possible to say whatever. Travel too was very open and free. Russian Empire restrictions were lifted, and new Soviet ones were not introduced yet. Government was one party system, but The Party's culture back then was that of open discussion and debate. Stalin was already a General Secretary, but back then it was just an administrative job about keeping track of various records and paperwork, it had no influence on policy.

It was an optimistic time where government felt like embracing modernity and trying out all sorts of new things. Innovative architecture, art, music, cinema and such were created. 20s were good times everywhere and USSR was no exception. In some ways it even managed to pioneer many new things during these times.

It was so different from what came after, it's almost impossible to believe it even happened. However, that period can explain why people would fight a civil war to make it happen.

Second Period

Second period was from 1933 to the death of Stalin in 1954. Years between 1929 and 1933 were somewhat of a transition between first and second. War years between 1941 and 1945 had some unique characteristics as well.

Second period was characterized by paranoia and constant fear of KGB (then NKVD). That was used as a tool of power and control that Stalin and the Party used to rule the population. 

Stalin administrative job in 20s included processing party membership applications. Overtime he filled the Party with people who were vastly different from those who founded it. Former Russian Empire bureaucrats all applied to join and eventually outnumbered the old-Bolsheviks in all Party structures. They brought their totalitarian culture with them. They used to serve Tzars, who maintained they are God chosen and their decisions cannot be questioned. People who used to work for Tzars therefore saw any criticism of superiors as capital crime. 

Such people were a very poor fit for The Party as they did not believe in discussion and debate and hardly had any ideas of their own. Overtime they somewhat adapted to this alien environment by fervently defending opinions and policies of party founder, Lenin and attacking everyone who they perceived as criticizing or disagreeing with any of that. Slowly the party of debate ideas and discussion evolved into a cult of Lenin where fervent zealots would compete in their display of loyalty towards their now dead leader. That loyalty also applied to Lenin's most loyal follower, Stalin, whom they perceived as the most rightful successor to Lenin's legacy, his most loyal follower and most authoritative interpreter of his vision.

Eventually former bureaucrats purged all old-Bolsheviks from all structures. Eventually NKVD purges allowed them to exterminate them as well. Then they began cracking down on broader population. Everyone who is perceived not following will of Lenin could be a target.

Land reform partly triggered and partly solidified this transformation. The idea was to take lands from peasants and turn them into collective farms. Such farms can later be provided with modern faming equipment such as tractors and harvesters. However, the idea was unpopular with peasants who did not want to lose their private land towards some collective entity, even co-op one.

Government response to that discontent was to jail those who disagree and push through with reform anyhow. That created public outrage and criticism both within the party and outside. Government decided to crack down on disloyal party members and broader public as well. Soon those in party who criticized the reform, were first expelled, then arrested and finally executed on the grounds of treason. 

After they purged the party, then went after general public. No one was safe from potential arrest and either death or lengthy prison sentence. Eventually filling Gulag with inmates became goal in itself and NKVD would simply invent crimes, forge evidence and then arrest people.

Closer to the end Stalin and government would keep targeting more and more groups of people for "investigation." The last such case was against medical practitioners, whom Stalin accused of deliberate malpractice to sabotage socialism. Some doctors were repressed but Stalin died soon after.

 

That period led towards people becoming more secretive and private. Most useful thing was to attract as little attention as possible to avoid being targeted by NKVD.

Some instead opted towards showing zealous devotion to Lenin to get ahead. However, that could lead towards groundless accusations of crimes from envies rivals. NKVD struggled to fulfil their quotas on convicted and would take any half-baked accusation, no matter how absurd. Anyone who hated their neighbors could easily get rid of them by telling NKVD that there are American spies. That also meant any random person could be send to Siberia on false accusations.

So, people became secretive, kept minimal public facade and only opened up to close friends who managed to somehow prove they are not the type to rat you out to NKVD.

There were also useful moral idiots who believed in what Party was saying. It was best to avoid such people as they could bring NKVD on you out of stupidity.

Third Period

After Stalin's death third period began. Khruschev era was somewhat transitional here. However, from Brezhnev to Gorbachev, there were a consistent period of half-baked oppression, that most people remember nowadays.

Rules somewhat remained the same as during the Stalin's era, but KGB was reluctant to enforce them.

After Stalin's death party bureaucracy united behind Khruschev against Beria. Beria was head of NKVD and was seen as architect and chief executive of purges. Party bureaucrats feared for their lives and did not want the paranoia of Stalin times to continue, so they opted to rally behind milder Khruschev and purge Beria.

That gave party the idea that they fundamentally can control who is in charge. After all various party bodies, such as central committee do get to vote on who is in charge. During Khruschev era they had several opportunities to decide fate of leaders with such vote.

After purging Beria and outmaneuvering Malenkov, Khruschev faced two coups. First was in 1957. Stalin Era top leaders, such as Molotov wanted to oust him. However, most saw Molotov as being more hardline than Khruschev so Khruschev won. Molotov and his allies were expelled from the party, but not executed like Beria.

Second was in 1964 and here Khruschev fell and was replaced with Brezhnev. Overtime party grew to see Khruschev as "voluntarist". By this term they meant that he just makes all decisions himself on gut feeling without consulting much and them makes everyone go along with him. That sometimes did lead towards problems such as introduction of corn, that was mismanaged. Some might call it leadership, but that became too radical by 1964.

Brezhnev was possibly the most moderate and Vice-Presidential person imaginative. Doing nothing became the new reality. Brezhnev would regularly annually report how things have improved since last year. Then get awarded another medal of Hero of USSR for all his hard work of reading from a paper and that was it. I doubt many American Vice Presidents could match his levels of inaction and managed to do less.

Brezhnev perfectly reflected the nature of his era. Rules stayed the same, but they became nothing but ceremonial formality. Gulag was phased out. KGB would no longer arrest people. 

People would profess some nominal loyalty to the system and agree with whatever Brezhnev says, but then just went on to do what they please.

There was censorship and many Western things or news were banned, but people would bypass restrictions and get access to that stuff anyway. Black market was thriving, you could buy Western Music, Hollywood movies or jeans from them. You could still tune to Voice of America or Duetsche Welle despite government running noise generators on their frequencies.

Kind of like internet piracy nowadays. Important people say it's wrong and RIAA works to enforce DMCA. However, people can pirate stuff anyway.

Occasionally some major enforcement would happen, but such events were rare. 

Open protests and criticism were still illegal and could lead to arrests, but most would not bother to go public. In private with friends, they just said what they wanted. Jokes about Brezhnev and communism were very popular.

Aftermath

Gorbachev's Perestroika was another such transitional period. That from Brezhnev's era hubris, that critics call stagnation and defenders stability, country moved towards uncertainty and transformation.

However, Perestroika coincided with economic difficulties and most people were concerned with finding groceries and other goods. Hence why Gorbachev is mostly remembered for empty shelves. Term "deficit" was used to describe it, people did pick it up and used it extensively in 90s to describe this phenomenon.

Yeltsin has managed to solve the empty-shelves problem, he inherited from Gorbachev. Stores were fuller than ever. Some Many did complain that they could not afford to buy anything thought. Eventually Presidential elections of 1996 showed that those who found stores full do outnumber those who cannot afford to buy anything.

Yeltsin fully restored international travel as well as private business. Censorship was abolished and TV and news could report variety of things.

On the other hand, economic uncertainty, job losses. Unlike USSR times one can actually lose one's job and become money-less and homeless.

Then came Putin and combined worst qualities of Brezhnev era with worst qualities of Yeltsin's one. Political freedoms like during Brezhnev and economy like during Yeltsin.

Why Rome did not Lasted

Rome collapsed due to internal reasons, then it should be some kind of very different Rome to last this long. Theoretically it could end up like Byzantium and simply fall later.

Thing it Rome could have prospered and be eternal only if it stayed in its Golden Age (Augustus Era). However, changing socio-economic factors led to its decline. Even in 200AD it was a mess, in 476AD Rome just fell on its back die to exhaustion and refused to move.

Even before this date Emperors relied on German mercenaries to do actual fighting, however after that date they could not even find a competent enough local general, so they promoted leader of mercenaries to a de-facto emperor. Of course, new security soon realized that there is no one left to enforce terms of their contract so they can run the place as they see fit.

East Rome (Byzantium) could have interfered, like they did during the Justinian time. However, most thought that relatively poor and unprofitable West just is not worth it compared to much richer East. So, they just let Germans have it.

It's not the first time Western military elite simply dumped their home countries and relocated themselves somewhere more affluent and profitable. Take Diadochi for example. The just ruled in modern Egypt and middle east and could not be bothered to take their home Macedon back from even Greek city states, much less Rome. 

End Neo-Feudalism

This video is about UK, but many of the issues in it also apply to Australia. Tony Abbot and his far-right bunch created Jobactive and work for the dole that is essentially a slave-labor system, similar to feudal times. That all lead to a disastrous outcome for the country and people.

I hope this video can open people's eyes on this issue and hopefully lead towards abolition of Jobactive, work for the dole and mutual obligations requirements. 

Not all Secular Ideologies are The Same

There are not one universal secular system that all agree on.

What Americans doing is different from what Soviets did. If USA and USSR could agree on how things should be, they would not be fighting Cold War. However both would rather burn the world in flames of nuclear war, that live under the other's system. If anything Americans gave weapons to mujahedeen because they would rather see Islamists win than USSR backed communists.

If anything Korea shows differences between systems, American system produced South Korea and USSR's system North Korea. The difference between them is striking. Just 70 years ago they used to be the same people and now.

American System also produced Taiwan and USSR mainland China instead. Nowadays people call it Taiwan but its more or a Americanized China and mainland China is Sovietized one instead. Here we also have Hong Kong (British China) and Makau (Portuguese China). Influence from four different Western countries produced a vastly different versions of China. However none of them want to be part of Soviet China.

USSR collapsed precisely because Russians and other people of the USSR did not want to be part of Soviet system either. Its just that bad. You might say Russians invented Soviet System but most Russians themselves no longer trust it.

Russia too moved on from Soviet past and embraced more Americanized system, at least party. There is debate within country whether it should fully Westernize or stay in post-Soviet hybrid state.

Western (North Atlantic) system mostly won, but some leftovers of Soviet system still linger here and there, in Syria for example. Some people Americans ended up supporting in Afghanistan might had some Soviet connections as well.

On the other hand, under Soviet system Afghanistan would probably look close to Tajikistan. If it was rich, it could be like Turkmenistan instead. In general, Central Asia is a good example of Sovietized Muslim states. It would be between Tajikistan and North Korea.

On Austria-Hingary

Austria-Hungary was a country where depend on where you ask you can get 10 to 15 different answers on what their nationality is. Ask in Cracow and pretty much everyone would say they are Polish, ask in Zagreb or Split and everyone would say Croat, ask in Vienna or Salzburg and they will say there are Germans. In the whole country no one identified as Austrian.

At first government in Vienna had policy of: it does not matter who you think you are, you are part of Austrian Empire now. Over the course of 19th century nationalist uprisings for independence keep getting bigger and bigger. Poles especially wanted their own country. Czechs, Slovaks and Romanians of Transylvania as well. 

Then when as compromise with Hungarian uprising they became Austria-Hungary, it made things even worse. Poles and Croats all thought that their national names should be added to the name as well and they should be given as much autonomy as Hungarians got.

After that government in Vienna was occasionally thinking of may be reforming all, so that they get more content. However, it was impossible to grant more autonomy to say Romanians in Transylvania because it fell into Hungary jurisdiction, and they would not want to compromise on that.

However, most of time they were thinking of how long we can last until nationalism will tear the country apart from within and all these nationalities will get their independent countries. 

At the end of WWI, when Austrian army was too busy fighting on the frontlines to suppress nationalists, they rose up and capsized the country from within. Allies of WWI were more than willing to grant pretty much every most of these requests for independence, with exception of German-Austria. German-Austria was renamed simply Austria, Allies said that they cannot join into Germany and arbitrated disputed German Bohemia and Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia, but game them Burgenland instead. There were other disputes over the borders.

That German-Austria issue was later raised by Hitler who wished to honor wishes of German Austrian, whom he himself was. Anschluss of Austria itself came without issue, but territories that were given to Czechoslovakia were more sticky issue. However eventually UK and France agree to give them to Germany, possibly because it was on the same grounds, on which they agreed to independence of parts of Austria.

A Permanently Divided Libya

Second Libyan Civil War went on for 10 years already and still shows no signs of any resolution. Numerous UN backed unity governments cannot satisfy both sides. Neither side can win outright on the ground.

Thus, the only way forward for Libya is to normalize a division into two countries with borders at current de-facto zones of control. Haftar and House of Representatives will rule East Libya (Cyrenaica) from Tobruk of Benghazi. Islamists will have Tripoli and the surrounding areas, West Libya (Tripolitania). Last Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte will be the main border point of East Libya.

I guess Tripolitana can use current Libyan Flag and Cyrenaica can adopt the King Idris era Black flag with Crescent. 

On Roman Political System

 

I recently watched this informative, but misleading video on Roman political system.

One thing it claimed for example is that Romans internationally wanted to limit the franchise to privileged elite. It is not inaccurate per se but backwards. It is not that franchise was divided from the start, but rather that people who joined the growing Rome at later times, eventually grew to demand political rights. 

That is initial citizens of Rome Inc had voting rights from the start and continued to have them at later times just as before. However, as Republic grew, more and more people ended up relocating to Rome. These newcomers eventually wanted to have representation in political decision making. The original stakeholders resisted it, eventually they compromised on two tier system, where newcomers would have a citizenship but not the same kind as the original ones. 

Original citizens eventually evolved into Senators or Patricians. New citizens were sometimes called plebians informally. They too eventually became as elitist as patricians and resisted expansion of voting rights to those who came after the original expansion of voting rights.

However, there was one other thing that author claimed. That Romans did not pursue universal equality and that we are better because we do. First of all, Romans probably had little time to think about such abstract things. Their system was more of an hoc solution that kept getting more and more ad hoc upgrades as they went. Eventually it became a bloated mess, historians' study nowadays.

However, I would claim one other thing here. Because Roman society was stratified, people had better understand of their self-interest. Because plebian knew he was plebian, he could better understand what his intrinsic self-interest is. In contrast a modern person who thinks that everyone is equal tend to overlook the fact that landlords and tenants, or workers and their employers basically live in different worlds and what is best for them is vastly different and sometimes completely opposite to each other. There is no policy that is good for them all. 

It's similar to how when workers consciously understood their situation and started form Trade Unions to collectively demand more rights. Unions eventually managed to improve their situation. They understood that being a worker puts them in a particular socio-economic situation that needs a particular solution. Such trade unions probably have a lot of parallels with plebian assemblies of Rome. Tories hate unions just as much as Roman Senators hated Public Tribune. 

However, we need more of such things. We need tenant union, who should go on collective rent-unpayment strike if landlords refuse to accept their conditions.

When people do share the same living conditions are represented by a single person, then such person can clearly and decisively advocate their issues with other bodies of power. If a person represents a geographic constituency, then he has to deal with vast array of conflicting needs and demands. That might lead to a situation where only the biggest, richest or loudest demographic is represented, and the rest are ignored.

How Taking a Sick Leave Destroyed the Biggest Country in the World.

I got an interesting theory about August Coup that ended USSR. 

Quite possibly Gorbachev was indeed sick. After all, Yanayev and his committee did say he was sick and temporarily unavailable to fulfill his duties. Most consider this a lie, but it actual had a good chance of being true.

Before his vacation in Crimea, Gorbachev had a very intense negotiations with Yeltsin and the rest of the republican leaders. That could have left him exhausted and sick. It was well known that Gorbachev could not stand Yeltsin, yet circumstances forced them to work together. After stressful negotiations over the new Union Treaty, that lasted a lot longer that Gorbachev initially anticipated, he possibly fell sick and did not truly recover by the time of the official signing.

One day before the signing, Gorbachev's deputy had no other choice but to announce that Gorbachev is sick, and he will be taking over the power. However, Yanaev and the committee handled the issue in a such ham-fisted way, it left people puzzled.

Yeltsin then jumped the gun, described the whole thing a coup and call for people to gather around White House and defend democracy. People gather. Yanaev against better judgement called the tanks, just in case. That however only further convinced Yeltsin, crowds and the world that it is a coup.

In the end Yanaev backed down, and Gorbachev returned to vastly different situation from how he left it.

Never before taking a couple of days sick leave left such a dramatic impact on the global history.

Also, sometimes truth is so unbelievable, it cannot prevail.

Some lies so believable; they endure against all odds.

How Politics in Russia are Different from the West

Many Western politicians envy Putin's sky high by Western Standards support levels. They think with a rating like that he can rule eternally and one day might even break Queen Elizabeth II record in power. 

Because of that. any notion that Putin needs to go great length, such as starting wars, just to maintain his support and stay in power is often dismissed out of hand as ludicrous. 

However, reality of Russian politics is that such gargantuan support can indeed disappear in a course of several days.

In fact, people in 80s also thought that USSR was eternal and will not just disappear into nowhere over the course of a confusing post-Perestroika days. Yet USSR did just that and many still struggle to understand how that happened. 

Different Foundations of Support

The reason is that for instability of Putin's support compared to Western politicians lay in different bases of support.

Western politicians' support is built on much more stable foundations. Most parties have a very loyal base that will never desert them: business owners and shareholders for the center-right and waged employees for the center-left. In between them are so called swing voters who does not fit into either category, so they keep changing their vote between the two main parties and determine the outcome of most elections. 

However, swing voters are much fewer in numbers than the two main blocks. Hardly more than 10%, maximum 20% of the people are swing voters. The rest are glued to their party, sometimes they are even referred to as Iron Vote.

Because of that even 55% support is a lot, and many Western politicians envy Putin who easily break 80% in some polls. 

However, what they are not aware of is that Putin's support is based on much more wobbly foundations. With exception of government bureaucrats, police, various government security agencies and army officers he does not have any strong base under him. All of them combined hardly amount for more than 10%. All the rest are basically swing voters and can easily swing away from him as things change.

To make matters worse, there is not any single biggest opposition party in Russia that can rally the people to their banners, should Putin fail. So, neither Putin, nor the rest of the government could possibly predict where disillusioned people will go, if they ever get disillusioned with Putin and that terrifies them.

Because of that Putin and Russian bureaucrats are much more jittery about anything that might tank support unexpectedly, like major scandal or some sort of natural disaster. They censor the media precisely to avoid something like that.

They jail or overwise silence people like Navalnyi, Litvinenko or Khodorkovsky, who expose corruption for exact the same reason.

How Putin Wins Swing Voters

Since Putin cannot win voters with constant haggling over the Industrial Relations (Labour) Law, like Western Parties do, he has to do something else.

However, he can no longer use promises of free stuff in future just like in Soviet times. Free stuff managed to unite a lot of different people being the government during Soviet times, but after these promises failed to materialize, people got disillusioned. This and other issues such as Chernobyl and casualties in War in Afghanistan eventually created a critical mass of disillusionment with the system that led to dissolution of USSR and collapse of the whole system.

However, what else could possibly unite so many different people with such a different and conflicting needs, believes and desires. Turns out fear. 

Terrorist attacks on apartment blocks in 1999 united people in fear that terrorists might blow up their homes next. Back then Putin so successfully managed to alleviate people's concerns by promising to defeat terrorists and protect everyone. His rating went through the roof, and he managed to win elections of 2000 easily.

However, if Putin would have failed to eventually defeat terrorists, public would have got disillusioned with him. On the other hand, if he actually defeated all the terrorists, then public would have eventually forgotten about the whole terrorists' menace as they switched to other concerns. In both of these outcomes he would have lost the elections.

Solution to this dilemma turned out to be simple. Simply invent new threats and then lie to public about them. Georgian menace replaced terrorists, then Ukrainian Nazis replaced Georgian menace.

How That Evolved Over Time

Eventually lies became taller and more elaborate. Public got used to the whole constant threat thing and switch their attention to other issues. Thus, propagandists had to make their stories about fake enemy increasingly more brutal to keep people concerned. 

Exaggerated, but still loosely based on real events, stories about Georgian shelling of 'peaceful' Tskhinvali, gave way to stories of made-up hate crime murders by completely made-up Ukrainian Nazis. Then when public started to question whether these stories are true, they had to forge evidence of these crimes in an infamous Bucha Massacre, where Russia's own troops massacred civilians so that Russian government propaganda could show Russian public fake evidence of crimes against humanity, committed by made-up Ukrainian Nazis.

Taller lies, build on top of existing lies are as stable of a base of support as house of cards. With each new layer of lies there are more and more risk that some irrevocable evidence against the claims of Russian media will topple the whole pyramid of lies and plunge the country into 1990s style collapse. However, the only solution government knows of is to add more lies, hoping the house of lies will not collapse this time.

Risks for Russian Government

That house of cards and lies produce ever increasing risk for Russian government. Sure, people in the West talk about politicians lie all the time, however the scale of their lies are different. 

When a politician promises money for a school or a road and do not deliver its upsetting, but not world shattering. You will not want to flee the country, fearing for your safety.

When the government constantly feed you a story about atrocities committed by fictional Nazi until you believe it's in your best security interest to support a military interference to stop them. If after that you accidently learn that these atrocities were actually committed by the very government, you just recently trusted to protect you from them. That is world shattering.

After all, how can you ever trust that government again, when you know they can so easily get away with literal murder. What if they murder you next and they just say it were Nazi or terrorists?

And if you cannot trust this government ever again, then government and the country itself will have to go.

The USSR Experience

The very same issue toppled the USSR. It is not the very fact of the Afghan War, that made people to oppose the soviet system, but the casualties of the war.

It is when they realized there is a good enough chance that their own sons or husbands might actually get killed there, they started to worry. Universal conscription and singe child families further exacerbated their fears. Even those who had daughters were concerned: number of men in Russia is limited and if their potential son in law dies in Afghanistan there are good chance their daughter will not be able to find another husband.

After casualties of the Afghan war crossed a certain threshold, it became as unstoppable as nuclear chain reaction. A chain reaction that ended up with dissolution of the USSR.

Chernobyl disaster, shortages of consumer goods and low oil prices further added fuel to the fire. Cumulative effect of it all was something no Gorbachev or anyone else could possibly stop.

In the end of the day the entire Soviet federal government together with Gorbachev and the country was simply abolished. Consistent republics (first level subdivisions) all became independent nations. Even some extra unrecognized independent nations emerged.

Implications for Russian Federation

If the same kind of collapse will happen to a current Russian Federation, then we will have 90 something new independent nations.

Ultimately current Russian Federation is a Frankenstein, stitched together from parts that have little in common with each other. There are no any intrastent forces that can keep it together in face of a storm.

Employment Law in USSR

There is one other thing that makes some people nostalgic towards communism and socialism. That is soviet employment law. While outright refusal to work and having no employment at all was illegal and punishable by jail terms. However, finding jobs were easy and losing a job was completely impossible.

All businesses were government owned, their policies controlled by the government. Jobs were offered to anyone who needed them.

However, its inability to lose a job that was the most important and bizarre elements of soviet system. One cannot lose a job even if they arrive 3 hours late and are too drunk to stand or talk intelligibly. Management faced with that could call the police to deal with a drunkard but could not fire them. Next day management typically had to deal with exact the same scene over and over again, every day of the week, every week of the month. In the end of them month such employees still received their paycheck for hardly ever working a day due to constant drunkenness. However, they were not considered unemployed due to them being on the payroll somewhere.

Certain professions were particularly prone to this behavior. Plumbers, electricians, lift repairman, street swipes and other communal services were typical career path for routine alcoholism work avoidants. Because of that Soviet people had hard time having plumbing of electricity fixed, many had to learn these skills themselves.

Reforming this system was not possible for political reason. Other people were equally worried for their own job security is management was allowed to fire people at will. It was also one of the popular measures that government used to justify their system against capitalism. After all even propaganda needs some real reasons to trump up socialism over capitalism and that was it: under capitalism workers can be fired at the whim of managers and business owners, but under socialism workers are protected by the system.

That is why many claim that social security was better then.

How Divisions of Eastern Slavs Came to Be

 Two biggest and oldest cities were Kyiv in modern Ukraine and (Great) Novgorod. Then other cities were founded in different directions. Halich, Chernigov, Rostov, two Volodymirs one in northwest Ukraine and other in east of Moscow in Russia. 

These cities were under their own rulers and for the most part independent from each other, there was a rotation rulership system for some time but then they just settled for near complete independence. Only religion was somewhat unified with one Patriarch of Kyiv. Yuri Dolgoruky convinced him to relocate to Vladimir (East one) and then to Moscow. From that Moscowy later claimed the right to rule over the whole former Rus.

However real division emerged from when Lithuanians conquered or unified the Western principalities. and Golden Horde eastern ones. What fell into Golden Horde sphere ended up modern Russia. What ended up in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine.

Further division between modern Belarus and Ukraine emerged when last Jagellon, transferred southern Voivodships from Lithuania to Poland. It was part of internal reorganization and transformation within Poland-Lithuanian Union, that was becoming more structured and organized. Rzeczpospolita, was then divided into two main subdivisions: Poland (Corona), that consisted of parts of modern Poland and West and Central Ukraine and Lithuania (Litva), modern Lithuania and Belarus. Before that reorganizations, Central Ukraine and Vohlynia, was part of Lithuania as well. However, Galicia was part of Poland even before that reorganization. Galicia was actually the first area to call itself Kingdom of Rus, before it was incorporated into Poland. Many centuries before Muscovy laid such claims.

In the east Golden Horde extorted tribute money from Rurikids princes, threatening to burn down their cities if they do not pay the Horde off. Protection racket as a form of government.

Three main branches of Rurikids were affected by that: Rostov (lake Nero)-Suzdal-Vladimir-Muscovy Principality (modern Golden Ring were their core lands), eventually emerged as dominant there. They eventually became Muscovy.

Tver and Ryazan principalities also suffered Golden Horde protection racket. Later their lands were conquered and incorporated into Muscovy. Tver did separated from early version of Muscovy, but often fought against Muscovites. Ryazan used to be part of modern-day Ukraine Chernigov Principality instead.

Novgorod was not part of Golden Horde, but rather Hanseatic league system. However, Muscovy conquered them shortly before Tver and Ryazan.

Eventually Rzeczpospolita consolidated in the West, Muscovy emerged from collapse of the Golden Horde in the East. Cities like Smolensk became their border areas and were constantly fought over, changing hands regularly. 

Fundamentally the West areas (Ukraine, Belarus) managed to retain most of the original character of the Rus. Rzeczpospolita was fundamentally western state. Rurikids came from modern day Sweden, Denmark or Baltic areas.

Russia on the other hand was exposed to a lot of Eastern Persian and Chinese influences through the Golden Horde system. Eventually Muscovy conquered and incorporated Tatar's Khanates of Kazan and Astrakhan, further making Russia some hybrid/fusion East-West entity. Turkic, Slavic, Finnic, Scandinavian and East Asian people are mixed into a single identity.

Problem with Russian Patriots

At first, I wanted to write here that patriots and Russian Government never listen to liberals and that is the reason they hate Russia and try to leave it if they can. However, there is more than that.

Problem with Russian patriots is that they fundamentally do not understand liberals. They hate liberals for lack of love for the Motherland, but they do not understand why liberals are this way. However, the reason patriots can never get liberals is because they think in fundamentally different ways. To understand how exactly, we need to analyze patriot first.

Patriots' mindset revolves around loyalty. Loyalty to the Motherland. They call it Motherland precisely to invoke this feeling. They further amplify it by touting numerous achievements of said Motherland. They would never cease to remind the world of different cultural, scientific and military achievements, Russia made over the course of its existence.

In a mind of a patriot such an accomplished country warrants loyalty. However, such logic only works on patriots themselves. Because it's a mindset of a patriot to seek a country worthy of loyalty. 

That is why patriots always blame America for liberals' lack of patriotism. In patriots mind on the United States can possibly match Russia's own might clot and achievements. That is why they incorrectly assume that if liberals do not like Russia, that is because they like America instead. America steals loyalty of Russian liberals.

That is also why patriots call their opponents traitors. In their mind lack of loyalty to Russia is akin to treason. However, in their mindset loyalty, the trait opposite of treason, is the most valuable quality. They view the people in loyalty treason dichotomy.

However, Russian liberals do not think like Russian patriots. Loyalty as principle holds no sway over the liberal mind at all. Liberals are fundamentally not loyal to anything at all. Even if they like America more than Russia, they are not loyal to America. 

What liberals look for is better quality of life, the level of creature comforts. The USA and Europe clearly have more creature comforts than Russia, so liberals want to go to these countries in order to live a much more comfortable life than what Russia can offer them.

Patriots themselves mock it as liveralism, after some fancy sausage type. However, liberals indeed value countries based on number of fancy sausage types and other creature comforts, that are available there. Other things include warm resort like climate like in Bahamas, comfortable rail transport like in Switzerland and many more.

Liberals in turn mock so called 'bare ass patriotism' precisely because patriots are willing to forgo creature comforts for their country. In a liberal mind that is a pinnacle of complete stupidity. There is nothing more stupid than to deny yourself comfort. Thus, if patriots divide the people into loyal and traitors, then liberals divide them into smart and stupid. That is why liberals criticize stupidity of patriots and of Russia in general.

Unlike what patriots think, in liberal mind places like Bahamas, Switzerland or Tenerife are more desirable than the US. Places that excel at creating maximum comfort for its people. Of course, not every liberal is aware of Bahamas existence, so many indeed conform to patriot stereotypes about them and praise America and the West.

Since worldview of liberals and patriots are so different from each other, understanding is hard. However, their bitter animosity is not something that cannot be solves. After all liberals and patriots look for completely different things.

So, if Russia can provide more comfortable existence for liberals, then they will not be as opposed to patriots as they are now. That of course means diverting a lot of money from military and prestige projects to things of comfort and convenience. However, that will make liberals more loyal to the country and prevent them from emigrating, trying to overthrow the government or becoming alcoholics. Other contries spend on comfort and Russia should do so as well, if its to stay relevant in the future.

What if Russia seceded from the USSR, but all Other Republics Remained

A response to this.

Prussia leaving German Empire would make for more plausible scenario.

However, it depends if USSR leadership and army is intact or not. If they are intact, they will try to take as much of RSFSR back as possible.

If not, then local separatism would likely destroy the rest. If Russophones prevail in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Latvia, they might push of a continuation of Western USSR, turning them into a gigantic Transnistria with Minsk rather than Kyiv as capital, as Belarus is most loyal. However, separatism will be strong and likely supported by other nations. It will be like Yugoslavian wars. Eventually West USSR will have to accept independence of all but Ukraine and Belarus, who will be like Serbia and Montenegro. Then Ukraine will secede too, and Belarus will remain just like Serbia is nowadays. Belarus will also have to accept independence of Hrodna Oblast after a prolong conflict between Russophone and Belarussian speakers. Hrodna Republic will then try to unite with Lithuania. I wonder if Latvia will be organized under Dayton Agreement similar to Bosnia and Herzegovina, divided into Federation of Courland and Semigallia, Republika TransDaugavska and Riga Federal District. Ukraine too might get Daytoned and divided in Federation of Kyiavia and Galizia, Republika Novorossia and Dnipro (non-capital) district.

Central Asia will see Uzbekistan fighting for domination with Kazakhstan. The other 3 likely take Kazakh's side, but that would not guarantee their victory. West USSR will be too busy with internal problems to help them. China might interfere on behalf Kazakh centered East USSR and defeat Uzbeks, thus preserving the union in close to original form. Otherwise, Uzbeks will annex all the rest into Greater Uzbekistan and then begin Uzbekization program.

I do not think south Caucasus will manage to stay united. Armenia and Azerbaijan will fight over Karabakh, soliciting help from both East USSR and West USSR. Eventually Turkey will interfere, conquer and annex whole Armenia and then unite with Azerbaijan peacefully. Georgia might then Join West USSR, but likely they will be like North Macedonia, argue with the US state of Georgia over who has more claim to the name. Georgia would join the UN under Former Soviet Republic of Georgia. FSROG. Over the 30 years disagreement Georgia will rename its airport into King George's Airport and build him a statue in the middle of Tbilisi. Eventually they will reach an agreement to rename Georgia into East Georgia.

On Liminality Principle

I think we need a more complex system to categorize the world. Just dividing it into few blocks with strict boundaries overlooks countries that are hybrids of several different cultures, mixed together. 

The new system will have to have much more groups, with subgroups in some cases as well as liminality countries. That is countries that exist on the border between 2 worlds and exhibit qualities of both, such as Turkey for example. Turkey is Greek Muslim hybrid. Korea might be considered Japan/China hybrid. Kazakhstan is Russia/Central Asia hybrid and so on.

In fact, liminality and hybridization is something often overlooked by systems such as above. Many countries, including England, Russia and USA are fundamentally mix of several distinct cultures, integrated into a single new entity.

We can select out a few pure types, then use these to explain a more complex hybrid identity.

On Whatifalthist and Why Christianity is Brain Poison, created by old people to Oppress the Young

I occasionally like to watch this rather interesting YouTube channel, called Whatifalthist. The guy in charge of the channel is well knowledgeable and makes many smart observations about different eras and people. However, he always falls short when it comes to making sound conclusions out of these observations. Most of his videos begin with interesting observations, but then end with way off conclusion that would not stand the test of any logic. There are occasional exceptions to this rule here and there.

For a long time, I wondered why knowing all that he constantly makes wrong conclusions on pretty much every topic he covers. Even before I watched his videos with a grain of salt, never fully agreeing with him or trusting him completely. However, in his recently video against modernity he finally revealed it himself. He is Christian and wants to promote his faith against modernity and Gnostism.

However, that video did more than just gave me a clear picture of author himself, it also allowed me to better understand Christian opponents of modernity and progress. It's nowhere in video itself of course, it's an independent idea I got watching it.

Why Christianity is Brain Poison, created by old people to Oppress the Young

Christianity is just a religion for old people. It exists because old people are afraid of death and do not want to die. They selfishly wish to be cared for to extend their pathetic lives couple of more years using sophisticated medicine and nursery homes.

However, there is no good reason for a young person to care for an old one. There could be a reason to care for your children for example as there are continuation of your genes and future of our civilization. However old people are nothing more than the past. They will just die and all effort on them will go to waste. That is why old people use Christianity, a religion that glorifies sacrifice to poison minds of the young. Christianity promises its victims life in paradise with God after death to fool them into wasting their life on Earth for the sake of these old parasites.

Because old people cannot adapt to the modern technology and the world the resent it altogether. Even if they can use modern technology, most are not as comfortable with it as young people are. 

Nostalgia for the past it also presents in elderly. They long for the times, when they themselves were young and capable rather than frail and weak.

A young person is better at using computers so if an old person wants to rig the competition to win, he has to make it about something old, only he knows how to use. Thus, old people push for preservation of all traditional industries and tools, so that they can still look capable by operating some outdated machinery, no one else cares about.

Old people also like animals precisely because they wish to overcompensate for their own deficiency. Compare to a dog even an old person is a capable being, dog will not betray or ignore him either. Its but a helpless animal compared to a human. Just as an old person himself is nothing more than helpless relict of the past compared to someone young. 

Old to young is what dog is to a human. Except our elderly is behaving like the most spoiled cat. Its long time to dump them.

Social Progressivism is modern Crypto-Christianity 

In this resentment of all things new and modern old people found useful ally in Christianity. in a particularly vicious stain of it. Christianity was never an honest religion. 

This iteration however takes hypocrisy to a new level. This time Christianity disguises itself as progressive ideas, such as feminism, multiculturalism, transgender fluidity and so on. This grotesque toxic fake modernity is contrasted with traditionalism and Christianity to fool more people into rejecting modernity and embracing tradition. 

However, that is false strawman analogy to make people choose between fake feminist modernity and traditional Christianity. There is nothing modern in feminism and everyone who claims that it a hypocrite.

Modernity is computers, internet and sending spaceships to space. It has nothing to do with feminism. In fact, women in general are more backward compared to men. 

In order to tell traditionalism Whatifalthist goes as far as equating religion of celibate clergy with procreation and fertility. A clear fallacy as a traditional Christian is hardly an example of fertility or masculinity. Christian ideal man is basically sissy. Christianity forbids sex before marriage. Christianity worships Virgin Mary.

However, Whatifalthist takes this fallacy further by claiming that its modernity that prevents men from being interested in women. He falsefully implies that traditional Christian men will just jump on women like rabbits in heat.

That explanation is likely favored by women as that allows them to simply blame men and continue to ignore economic issues and their own unattractiveness.

In reality is the austerity ridden economy and overpopulation removes any insensitive to procreate. If poor economy does not allow one to support their children, then there is no point in looking for potential mate. It's the same in wild nature. For example, birds first secure the next before thinking of mating and laying eggs. A bird without secured nest will not seek potential partner. Similarly, a human without own home, will not seek to date or have children. A few idiots who breed without homes are exception. Read Maslov's Theory of Necessities. Back in the days boomers had easy access to homes so breeding was the only thing on their mind.

Ugliness of contemporary women does add to the problem. Contemporary fashion is indeed ugly, but most Christian attires are hardly any better. Most men will not go for an Amish looking women but neither their will go for a 2010s feminist. The most attractive modern attires were created on the turn of centuries Between 1996 and 2005 something. I know little of what was there before 1996, but what came after 2009 is as hideous as sin.

In fact, this socially progressive mess of feminism and multiculturalism is simply a continuation of Christianity by other means. It is Christianity that wanted to unite people with one religion for everyone. It is Christianity, that wish to break social and cultural borders with its religion.

Finally, it's not modernity that wants to destroy cultures and identities, but rather Christianity. It is Christianity who is forcing its worldview on everyone around it. Christians are intolerant of any opposing worldviews. 

Back in Roman times there were a lot of beautiful traditions and cultures. Diverse gods from all across Mediterranean were worshiped by different people in the Empire. With advent of Christianity, it all disappeared. Roman Empire itself fell shortly after. Golden Age of mankind ended in misery and barbarian oppression.

Of course, Rome was not perfect, but what replaced it was much worse. In fact, it's Christianization of Rome, that made it into ugly abomination, that collapsed within couple of centuries. Pagan Rome conquered the Mediterranea and build a Golden Age. A Christian Rome fell flat on itself and was destroyed by their own people.

Christianity vs Gnosticism

Finally, Whatifalthist makes many unfounded attacks against Gnosticism, linking it to modernity. Looking at it through its Christian orientation it becomes clear why. After all Gnosticism seeks to understand all there is to understand about the world. However, in doing so, they will inevitably discover the fallacy, Christianity tries to sell to the world. Thus, Christianity attaching Gnosticism is akin to a criminal who wants to silence the witness.

I do hope that Gnosticism will eventually prevail over the religion of misery, crooks and old people worship, Christianity is.

Nazi and National Socialists

I was using these terms interchangeably in my writings. Nazi sure is short, simple and conveys the message.

However, reality is Nazis were completely blackwashed by Soviet and partly even American propaganda. USSR needed a devil like entity to glorify and justify its own existence. Americans too needed a convenient villain for their Hollywood movies.

Image of Nazi portrayed in propaganda only loosely based on actual people who government Germany at the time. Propaganda Nazis are nothing more than senseless brutes who would like to exterminate the entire earth population only Germans remain. Actual German government was much more sensible and pragmatic over what they did.

I have little interests in propaganda about Nazi, its nothing more than comic book level villain story. What I am interested in is actual National Socialists who governed Germany back then and things they did.

I am not going to justify them completely as they indeed committed many crimes against humanity and were authoritarian and illiberal. I am not a neo-Nazi, who would like to endorse this ideology in its completeness. I do not support totalitarianism or one-party rule.

To be completely fair I even sometimes partly justify pre-Stalinist USSR. Before Stalin created his totalitarian system in 1933, USSR was not completely bad.

However National Socialists were not all bad. They had a sensible gender relationship policy that would have prevented mess with divorces that boomers created in the US and commies in the USSR. Man would not leave an obedient and subservient woman. Women would be able to have relationship under National Socialism.

National Socialists also put a great deal effort into development of science. They also had decent policies, aimed at improving standards of living for the poor. Something very much needed in our modern life.

A lot of National Socialist decisions were necessary evil to stop the Stalinism from taking over the world. Stalinism won and we saw Gulag, Mao and Pol Pot. If Hitler would have won, there would be no further communist crimes against humanity. I wrote a separate article to explain why communist purges were worse that than of National Socialists.

National Socialists are nor the biggest devil out there. Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and such committed much more hideous crimes and their justification for these crimes are much worse than that of German National Socialists. Germans acted based on cynicism and real politics, Communists on nothing more than wishful thinking.

Because of all I wrote about National Socialism, world really ought to reevaluate the reality of this ideology. Not through the lenses of victor's justice but through the reality of what they tried to achieve.

National Socialists Were Against Feminism

One good thing that makes Nazis better than commies is that Nazis were against feminism. Nazis were clear that woman's place it to serve and obey man.

In contrast feminist commies were pussyfooting around women and their needs. Commies failed at putting women in her place, instead letting them rule society. The result was miserable and dysfunctional post-Soviet space with greatest gap in life expectancy between genders.

This difference also applies to how they run concentration camps. Nazis would send as many women there, as they send men. And they will also make women make sandwiches food to guards and inmates.

In contrast commies were shying away from sending women to Siberian Gulag. So much for their vaunted equality. They are nothing more than women worshipping cucks and simps.

Ironically enough Nazis treated women more equal than commies.

Back in 90s Victor Chernomyrdin said that he would withdraw nomination of a person to a ministerial portfolio if he asked to discuss it with his wife first. Given enough time Yeltsin and Chernomyrdin could have cured Russia of feminism.

Obviously, women who get used to Soviet style treatment will make for a useless wife.

Nowadays Central Asian countries curing feminism with Islam. Russian men need someone like Japanese or Thai women, who respect honor and obey men.

It is very regrettable that deranged feminist commies took control of the country in 1917 and then went on to spoil women with feminism. Undoing their efforts is hard task. Women are especially spoiled with Russian gender relationship attitudes. 

On the other hand, men do not want to date or marry anyone as they do not feel it's worth it. There are more drawbacks than benefits in dating, so men do not want to. Finding a clear-cut alternative to a typical Russian style relationship is hard task. So far, the closest clear-cut different is Japanese stereotype about utterly obedient and subservient women.

Class System in Russian Empire and then in USSR

After Revolution of 1905 people in Russian Empire were officially divided into 5 classes based on socio-economic status. That was mostly used for elections, but for other things as well. Before formalization in 1905, there were still divisions between peasants and aristocracy.

The 5 classes of 1905 were in order of precedence:

1. Aristocracy: Rulal landowners who employed peasants to work their land. I think it was impossible to gain or lose this rank. It was completely hereditary.
2. Urban dwellers who own property above certain value threshold. Industrialists, factory owners, big business, bourgeoisie in Marxian terminology.
3. Urban dwellers who own property below certain among. Small shop owners and such Petit-Bourgeoisie, Middle class. Possibly the most diverse class.
4. Ubran dwellers who do not own any property. Proletariat, Working Class. People who worked 16 hours, 6-day workweek on factories owned by the 2nd class above.
5. Peasants: rural dwellers who worked on fields owned by the 1st class on this list. Sometimes they owned some land themselves, but typically not enough to support themselves.

First three classes were hardly more than 1-3% of total population of Russian Empire. 

Workers were ever growing and well-organized class, concentrated in large urban centers. They were about 17% of total population. They because backbone of Red Army and USSR. 

Peasants were the biggest class, but they were dispersed all around the vast country and had hard time organizing into anything.

The original electoral system used for Duma elections gave each of these classes equal number of MPs. Electoral districts were the same for each class. So, there were several MPs per district, one for workers, one of urban rich and one for urban middle for example.

That of course was intentional and gave 3% of population 60% vote in Duma. 

Later this system was changed to make all classes elect a single representative. However, disparity was maintained and even worsened by letting upper classes vote directly, while requiring lover classes to first vote for an elector, who will cast vote on their behalf. Vote of the elector of the poor was equal to a vote of upperclassman despite the fact that it took thousands of the poor to elect one elector. Most districts had more upper-class voters compare to number of electors allocated to underclassmen.

Communist Era

When Lenin declared USSR to be a country of workers and peasants, he literary meant 4th and 5th classes on the list. The 3 upper classes were to be dispossessed of all their property and be either turned into 4th class or literary exterminated as 'class enemy'. Lenin correctly assumed that three upper classes will be unhappy with his nationalization and will oppose communism. Fundamentally all members of first three classes either fled the country or were exterminated down to the last man.

Lenin however did maintain workers higher status and privileges over peasants, however. For example, before 1933 in elections worker's vote was worth much more than that of a peasant. Echo of imperial time unequal voting power. At first communists did not change it completely, but simply eliminated 3 upper classes.

First 3 classes, who held highest voting power in empire time, were completely deprived of right to vote after communists took over. Communists considered it a form of justice to put those who were once on top to a complete bottom. 

These distinctions were completely abolished in 1933 and one person one vote system was introduced. Not because they believed that the upper classes deserve to vote, but rather because they concluded that none of members of these classes were left in the USSR by 1933.

However overall, the 1933 changed mostly solidified dictatorship, rather than added more political pluralism. 

System, that used to govern Soviet Russia and USSR between 1917 and 1933 was akin to federation of trade unions. Lower tier unions (soviets) of this or that factory or plant, elected members to the higher tier unions, tier above factory was city, then oblast, then local SSR, then USSR.

In that 1933 that was replaced with a directly elected Supreme Soviet. That by itself closer is liberal democracy than before. However, it was combined with uncompetitive elections with only one legal party like in USSR. Because of uncompetitive elections government became much more detached from people than before.

In some ways inequality between urban and rural class only increased in USSR. Even in Khruschev times peasants were not allowed to relocate to urban areas.

Difference Between Nazi and Commie Concentration Camps and Crimes Against Humanity

Western Allies fought to free people, USSR merely to change who is inside the concentration camps.

Americans and British fought the WWII to liberate people from totalitarian dictatorship. From a system that puts people in concentration camps and exterminate races in gas chambers. On Western side of the war, it was clear as day who were the good guys and who were the bad guys.

On Eastern Side however it was much more ambiguous. USSR's Gulag was just as cruel as Nazi camps were. In fact, it was Nazi, who imitated Gulag in places like Auschwitz, rather than the other way around. 

Soviets later replicated their Gulag in places like North Korea and Cambodia. Pol Pot was imitating USSR just like Nazi were. So were other communist countries.

So, if both sides commit crimes against humanity, then there are no good guys on eastern front at all. Just two bad guys.

The fact that soon after WWII was over, Cold War begun shows that differences between systems were apparent even then.

However, it was not just a situational alliance that pitted USSR against Nazi Germany. Modern commies just as opposed to neo-Nazism as liberals are. If that is not because they find concentration camps deplorable then why?

The answer lies in different ideologies. Both commies and nazi would not think such a treatment normal for all people. However, there is a difference in how they decide who should be condemned to it.

Nazi

I will begin with Nazi, because their system is much simpler. It's based on their racial theory that ranks all races and ethnicities in order of advancement and desirability. As sort of a tier list with Germans themselves are placed on the topmost tier and everyone else is graded based on how close to Germans they are according to Nazis.

Nazis went to great length to define physical, intellectual, cultural, moral and other criteria, that makes Germans toptear shining example of human beings. Then graded all other races based on how close they are to this benchmark.

Some of their assessments were somewhat dubious for an average person. For example, then considered Japanese to be Asian Germans and Iranians tan Germans, who were almost on the same tier as Germans themselves. However Nazi theories could easily explain how an Iranian is more German than a Pole.

In contrast neighboring Poles, whom average Iranian will have a hard time telling from a German, were considered infinitely more inferior to Germans, Japanese and Iranians. The lowest possible tier was given to Jews and Gypsies (Romani).

That system allowed Germans to build a vision of the future, based on these tier lists:

The top tier races would be given dominion over the world. Germans called them Aryan Master race.

Lesser tier races such as Poles, would be forced to serve the Aryan Master Race.

Bottom tier races would be exterminated down to every single man, woman and child. That clause is what caused Holocaust. Only Jews and Gypsies were to be subjected to this fate. Nowadays attempt to exterminate Jews is called Holocaust and Gypsies are mostly forgotten and discriminated against just as before.

Implication to the individual

In a system like that it is one's ethnicity that determines one's fate. If you are German or part of another near-German Master Race, then your place in this system is secure. You will not be sent to concentration camp and will not be exterminated. Hence you had no reason to fear the Nazis as they will not hurt you in particular.

Some Nations such as Dutch, Luxemburgish or even Czech were considered misguided Germans. On one hand Germans would have subjected them to forced assimilation into German culture, but once assimilated they will be considered as much German as actual Germans are. Unless one has sentimental attachment to their culture or some particular hatred for German one, it's not such a bad deal.

Jews and Gypsies had it worst and had all reasons to oppose it to the death. Nowadays it is Jews who. critizise Nazism most, but you can understand them as they had most to lose.

For an intermediate races situation was well, intermediate. A lot would depend on how high or low one is in the Nazi racial hierarchy. 

Another consideration is how close your contry is to Germany. Germany could plausably resettle Polish territory with their own ethnically German people, but it would be much harder for them to do the same with Ukraine or Russia for example. That is just further away from Germany, why settle Germans there, when you can settle them in Poland instead and push Poles into Ukrainian lands for example.

Some also claimed that Nazis exterminated gays and communists, but there were anti-gay laws in other countries at the time. I think UK only decriminalized homosexuality in 1972 or something like that. As for communists, then it's just a bitter rivalry between two systems. You do not want to be a commie in a Nazi controlled country just as much as you do not want to be a Nazi in a commie controlled one.

Communists

Communists do pride themselves on not discriminating against different ethnicities. There are lots of Soviet Jewish jokes that criticize veracity of that. However overall Soviet repressive system was based on factors other than ethnicity.

In the Civil War era USSR made class as a criterion for repression and discrimination. I have a separate article about that here.

However once USSR exterminated all the upper classes of the Russian Empire, it went after well off members of the remaining two.

By 30s even being a slightly better off than a neighbor was a reason to suffer Soviet concentration camp - Gulag. Kulaks were peasants who manage to farm on the same plot of land slightly better than their neighbors, produce some surplus, sell and make money. KGB deemed them crooks who gamed the system to get rich, confiscated their land and send them to Gulag for 20 years.

Soon even this was not enough KGB went after other suspicious people. By middle 30s even being not just even slightly critical but even not sufficiently enthusiastic about communism could get you branded as 'enemy of the people' and condemned to Gulag.

Soviet KGB often get out of their way to make sure people they condemn to Gulag are guilty of at least something. However, statuary definition of some crimes was altered so ridiculously, that even sneezing in the wrong direction could be deemed a High Treason capital crime.

The enabling law was that of High Treason. Under loose 30s Soviet definition almost any action or inaction can be deemed that. Slight criticism of the party or the system, being late to work, asking uncomfortable questions and so on. 

Being late to work would be deemed intentional sabotage of soviet industry, with the only prove of guilt needed is KGB agent honest opinion.

However, the most typical was simply an accusation of being a spy of an agent of the US government. Stalinist USSR managed to convict 20 million American spies to Gulag before the US government even created CIA. Needless to say, these people were not spies.

Implication to the individual

Unlike Nazis there were not any apparent safeguards from KGB. If in 20s you can be certain you will not be exterminated if you were a proletarian, then by mid 30s anyone could be sent to Gulag.

To make matters worse, they not just send people to Gulag, but they also messing with their minds and psyche by accusing and then convicting them of crimes they have not committed. This hypocrisy and lies are at the heart of Stalinist regime.

Even if you yourself know you are not at fault, people around you would not be so sure. Communism not just exterminated people, they also made broader society think that these people indeed committed serios crimes that warranted such treatment. Thus, even if you are freed, instead of sympathy for a victim of a hideous oppressive regime, you are treated with distain and scorn by those who believe in government false accusations.

Unlike National Socialists of Germany, USSR had no clear criteria for ther repression, so KGB often acted on their selfish whims and emotions and sent people to Gulag they themselves find subjectively unlikable. That is plain arbitrarily, rather than cohesive system.

The whole practice of soviet mass repressions created a sense of constant paranoia in society. Everyone with a modicum of brain and critical thinking lived in constant fear they could be next.

Psychological impact of these practices should be thoroughly studied by modern psychiatrists and scientists.

Comparison

All of that makes Soviet system infinitely worse than that of Nazis. 

At the very least Gestapo will not lie to you about the reasons, that landed you in concentration camp. It was almost always clear where you stand with the Nazis: you either can live with them or have to flee to the foreign nations or forest.

USSR gave you sense of false safety, before unexpectedly arresting you. Afterwards they will make you go through a public humiliation over "crimes" you have not committed, followed by the trip to a death camp.

Years of communism left deep psychological scars on people who were subjected to it. Because of that it is an ideology, much worse than Nazism.

Extra Notes

People who been victims of Nazi atrocities are clearly recognized as such by global community, while victims of communism are still either ignored or sometimes even called enemies of the people by tankies and idiots who want to justify what commies have done.

Also, Nazi had no access to Siberia, so their camps were in much milder climatic conditions.

Finally, Nazis were anti-feminists and clearly placed woman in a subordinate to man position. In contrast commies were filthy feminists and allowed women to get out of man's control.