Tut‐tut, I see that feddit.org has blacklisted lemmygrad.ml members, which explains why Enkrod overlooked my comment on the Western Allies’ lackluster excuses for liberation.

Of course, I could have made my comment longer, such as specifically mentioning how the Western Allies maintained Fritz Schaeffer as Bavaria’s minister president. That wasn’t a secret either.

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/2994681

https://lemmygrad.ml/post/2970754

I’m surprised that nobody defended the Western Allies’ takeover of former Axis empires yet. I am going to write this to prevent any attempts:

The Western Allies reused the Empire of Japan’s system of forced prostitution.

Italian anticommunists pardoned Fascists while punishing thousands of partisans; there was no equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials for the Italian Fascists; the liberal bourgeoisie refused to prosecute Fascists for their atrocities in Ethiopia; and there were continuities between Fascism & the post‐1945 Italian police.

When the Western Allies took Algeria from the Axis, they let the fascists continue running the internment camps; important elements of the Fascist era survived in postwar France.

The U.S. Army continued keeping Jews in the Axis’s concentration camps (‘We appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them, except that we do not exterminate them.’ — Harry Truman, Sept. 1946); West Germany’s régime was polluted with surviving Axis personnel; fascist elements survived in West Germany.

Somebody could argue that there was no alternative to the Western Allies, but plenty of partisans were active in France, for example, and the Eastern Allies could have reached every Axis‐occupied region given enough time.

I’ll freely concede that the Western Allies were better than the Axis… but that’s not exactly saying much.

I wouldn’t joke about this, honestly. It’s too depressing.

I am contemplating publishing more articles about Finland during the Fascist era. I think that we get really annoyed when generic antisocialists suddenly suspend their ‘antifascist’ pretensions to defend Finland’s negotiations and collaborations with Europe’s Fascist empires, and seeing what it is that they’re unintentionally(?) defending should be pretty embarrassing for them.

Among the atrocities committed by the Portuguese, it is possible to list the massacres in Xinavane, Mueda, Mucumbura, Wiriyamu, Chawole, Inhaminga, among others. University of Coimbra’s Documentation Center “25 de Abril” has a rich collection about what happened in Wiriyamu, with a hundred articles and newspaper clippings from the most diverse countries that participated in spreading information about the acts of the Portuguese in the region. On Saturday, December 16, 1972, Portuguese soldiers killed approximately 400 Mozambicans in Wiriyamu. Today, in the old village of Wiriyamu, there is a monument with the bones of the victims.

Furthermore, there is evidence published by Le Monde Diplomatique (1972) that two South African pilots were hired as mercenaries by Portugal, and carried out secret chemical warfare missions against nationalist fighters in northern Mozambique. The operation was aimed at destroying the crops that would feed FRELIMO guerrillas, using the substance 2,4‐D, Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, which was among those used by the U.S. in Vietnam and World War II.

(Source.)

As a complement to the concentrationary policy of interning the African populations in large villages, the military hierarchy would use, from 1971 onward, the desperate option of “cleanup” operations, already largely implemented in Northeast Mozambique and on the eastern shore of Lake Malawi. These were meant to eradicate villages, exterminating all their inhabitants and emptying the territory to block the path of the guerrillas.

By the end of 1972 the “cleanup” operations along the Zambezi, from Mucanha and Mucumbura to Inhaminga, started to prefigure a wider genocidal strategy. […] Soon […] the 6th Commando Group arrived in helicopters, surrounded Wiriyamu and entered it. The people were lined up, men in one group, women in another. For the most part they were then shot, but others were herded into houses which were set on fire, while some of the children were kicked to death and other individuals were murdered in various atrocious ways. […] At the same time, the rural areas were bombed, eventually with napalm, before the launching of “cleanup” operations to exterminate the remaining populations, supposedly in contact with the guerrillas.

(Source herein.)

And the Estado Novo’s colonies were all in Afrasia (not merely Africa as such).

It really bums me out seeing somebody deny that the Iberian parafascists engaged in white supremacist violence. I am guessing that that is a product of the Portuguese education system rather than a conscious distortion, but still it really depresses me. It’s like nobody cares that the Iberian parafascists massacred Afrasians.

Why are you always posting propaganda from all of these obviously Russian‐backed sources?

I shouldn’t have chuckled at this.

Does anybody else think that Dan Osborn sounds suspiciously like a protofascist?

At first he seems okay: he is a labor union leader with some proletarian experience, he supports a minimum wage, accessible abortions, is critical of corporations, he opposes a Republican candidate, and he is even interested in protecting some undocumented workers. So far, so good.

Then looking into his policies, that was when I started worrying: he supports small businesses, he favors stricter border control, and he brags about his military background. Although he does not appear to own a business, his wife works as a general manager of a bar and grill in Omaha. There is also this:

On foreign affairs, Osborn approvingly quoted a friend who had said: “funding Ukraine is America First.” “It is helping our national security by stopping Russian aggression there before it gets anywhere else,” he said.

When I learn that somebody has a military background, it tends to concern me but it is not necessarily a major obstacle to cooperation either. When somebody has a military background and misrepresents small business as an alternative to big business, that is when my alarm bells go off. I know that Osborn seems moderate or innocent now, but I’ll be unsurprised if his politics evolve the same way that Oswald Mosley’s did. Call me paranoid if you must.

Cut an anticommunist and an anticommunist bleeds?

You joke, but many antisocialists seriously think that this is a good argument in favor of capitalism.

As war grew nearer, the SS were permitted the right to use Army land for war games. Safety practices were not followed with Himmler stating that the SS must be used to “being within 50 to 70 meters of the explosions of his own artillery fire.”⁷² For context, in standard military practice “the method of engagement when the target is (rounds will impact) within 600 meters of friendly troops” is considered “danger[ously] close” which indicates a certain degree of risk for friendly personnel.⁷³

Himmler noted that it was sad that prime German youth must sadly be cut down in training accidents, but there was a method behind the idea to ignore safety in war games.⁷⁴ This came from an idea that suggested that the pain endured during training would ensure that when war came the Waffen SS would be ready to perform at their highest possible level and save lives in the long run.

The casualty rates of the SS did not support the notion that the dangerous training methods were effective. Tim Ripley’s analysis of combat on the Eastern Front suggests that some units suffered somewhere “in the region of 75 percent casualty rates.”⁷⁵ These casualty rates are supported by where the SS divisions found themselves in combat. When combat started the Waffen SS commonly found themselves at the tip of the proverbial spear for German assaults.

(Source.)

Reminds me of Starship Troopers.

How does somebody try communism?

You mean this? I searched that entire list and there is no evidence whatsoever that American antisocialists collaborated with Fascists. Name one example.

Just because the American ruling class refused to hold a major tribunal for Italian Fascists, let Axis personnel continue running concentation camps, relinquished its commitment to justice at Nuremberg, intentionally recruited thousands of surviving Axis employés and collaborators for anticommunism, relied on Axis servicemen for intelligence, gave former Axis employés comfortable jobs in post‐1945 Japan, staffed South Korea’s police with Axis employés, hired Axis criminals for a space programme, defended Axis war criminals in courts, sanitized antisemitic fascists, discretely internationalized fascism, used a Slovakian fascist as an asset, collaborated with fascists to manipulate Italian politics, nurtured a lobby full of Axis collaborators, staffed the NATO with former Axis officials, declined to uproot German Fascism, became unconcerned with neofascist shrines, worked with neofascists to crush Turkish communism, let Axis personnel infiltrate the Republican Party, saluted Waffen‐SS employés, and allows hundreds of monuments to Axis collaborators, doesn’t mean that it failed to destroy fascism.

Show me one example—just one—of an American antisocialist knowingly protecting, endorsing, or reusing an Axis war criminal.

See, when I complained on Nightdive’s Discord server about map glitches that have not been rectified in twenty‐nine years, the excuse that somebody gave to me was that fixing those glitches would result in compatibility issues with other source ports (which would be especially noticeable if attempting multiplayer).

Here is what I wrote:

Is there something in the contract stating that the current designers aren’t allowed to fix old bugs that nobody—and I mean nobody—enjoys?

I mean, the wall running and the silent BFG trick, yeah, but… inaccessible secrets?

Here is the response that two official developers gave me:

So a chunk of the developers for this port are people who have been programming and modding Doom for 20+ years. As such, we tend to err on the side of caution on fixing specific behaviours because we know the knock on effects of trying to fix them, Technical debt is a problem we are trying to avoid, essentially.

If we change something, we have to maintain that change and all systems it affects.

and mod support is on the table, so anything we change has the potential to break 70000 mods[.] unfortunately Doom seems very much built on a table made out of very thin wafers

I replied that while I did not know if that was a sacrifice worth making, I could at least understand why they were making it. Somebody replied,

if it wasnt worth it, doom purists would just be playing (g)zdoom

A couple of nights ago I had another strange dream: one about Fascists who fought for the Allies.

That would actually be a passable idea for an article seeing as how some Fascists such as Marshal Pietro Badoglio and General Mario Roatta stuck with the Kingdom of Italy until its end, and it is at least plausible that some Axis soldiers ended up in penal battalions. There was also George Lincoln Rockwell, somebody who worked for the Western Allies yet became a neofascist anyway. How I could spin all of this into an article, though, I am less sure.

I am planning on publishing an article about dogs in the Third Reich a few weeks later, but I have barely started writing it.

Although the way that you are posing this enquiry sounds very inflammatory — suggesting that somebody is supporting fascism is a very serious accusation — I am going to assume good faith for now.

The first and most obvious problem is that you have a deeply misinformed perception of the DPRK. For a more reasonable and realistic view, see here. (You’ll also find more explanatory content through lurking that board.)

The next issue is that Wikipedia, being dominated by neoliberals, offers an oversimplified definition of fascism. Fascism was the means by which the bourgeoisie strengthened and protected capitalism from its own contradictions. Nobody appointed Kim with that goal in mind. You should take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, because while it can be useful for starting research, it is unsafe as an endpoint.

Despite its evidently restricted character, the [Soviet] elections in 1937 were perceived by many ordinary people as an opportunity to participate in framing a new constitutional order. The turnout reached 96.8 per cent of the electorate. Some ballots were spoilt. In one district 97 per cent of votes cast were valid, the remainder defaced in some way, or the candidate’s name erased. In Novosibirsk region the name ‘Trotsky’ was written in on one ballot, ‘I am voting for the heavenly Tsar’ on another, and ‘We are not voting’ on a third.⁹

(Source.)

While I do prefer the Russian Federation over Ukraine’s régime, I am reluctant to term this preference ‘support’, unless you think that dismissing various demonizations of the Russian Federation counts as such. Materially, I’ve never supported the Russian Federation with anything, but I do defend it against demonizations since demonizations are exactly what make lower‐class people think that it’s okay to continue wasting their tax dollars on a neoimperialist client state: the Ukrainian government.

As much as I loathe the Russian government, its invasion of Ukraine was not a naked power grab in the style of WWI, but the inevitable consequence of the Western bourgeoisie breaking its promise not to continue expanding eastward. The Western bourgeoisie has spelled out for decades its long‐term goal of balkanizing the Russian Federation, and many Ukrainian neofascists have done likewise. Such a partition would only benefit the Western upper classes at the lower classes’ expense.

For me, the goal is not so much to ‘support Russia’ per se as it is to weaken neoimperialism and hopefully convince others to stop giving up their resources to a neoimperialist client state when those resources could be better spent on services and products that we need here and now as lower‐class North Americans. I suppose that somebody could argue that I’m splitting hairs here since opposing neoimperialism effectively means supporting the Russian Federation, but I think that saying ‘I support Russia’ would be too vague and misleading to be helpful.