Stalin quick facs

Rule :With a Pod after WW2,attempt to destroy the Soviet Union as quickly as possible.
The soviet Union will count as destroyed if it is balkanised and the most populated of the new states has less than 60% of the USSR population pre-collapse.
The Cold War may not go hot.
Don't forget politics.For example Stalin may have been a dictator but if he ordered to nuke Moscow he would most likely have been deposed rather than obeyed.
Edit:By after WW2, I mean after the japanese capitulation.

Hi folks,
The civil war in the Soviet Union is really hard on me right now. Slowly but surely, I got my head around this game and eventually it works out (USA fascist, or civil war in Germany/France or even China) but the Russian civil war is something I don't understand yet. I tried to make Russia fascist, but once the civil war starts, my troops get stuck and the front won't advance anymore. Here a quick note of all the steps I take before the civil war:

1. I rush all the focusses towards the civil war;
   
2. I infiltrate so I get enough territory. I infiltrate everything!
   
3. I let Stalin do all his purges;
   
4. I recruit cavalry;
   
5. I frame officers;
   
6. Once the war starts I sabotage everything behind enemy lines;
   

Still somewhere in Siberia the troops won't advance and the battle gets stuck.
What can I do to make this war go smoother?

Britain in fall of 1940 was in a relatively good position:

• They had "won" the battle of Britain by 1940 in that they had denied the Luftwaffe's attempt to bomb them into submission.
  
• This victory came without any lost of Britain's core territory or significant loss of national treasure. Relatively little (squads of RAF fighter pilots) was spent with the RN remaining the most powerful on earth, and the total death toll, especially in comparison to the Great War, was relatively low.
  
• It was clear Germany was not able to, or not going to, attempt a land invasion of Britain, at least in the neamid future. The home islands are secure.
  
• Most of their empire was relatively intact. While they lost British East Africa to Italy, the crown jewels of the Empire: India, Singapore and the Suez Canal remained firmly in British hands.
  

On the other hand, the prospect of total victory over Germany, in 1940, seemed costly and remote:

• To defeat Nazi Germany, they would need to attempt a land invasion of continental Europe, at a significant cost of life and treasure. The recent memory of the Great War must still linger in the British psyche at that point. While Britain ruled the waves, there are no guarantee the British Armed Forces would fare better than France did against the Wehrmacht.
  
• Should the conflict continue, the British Far East colonies will likely be in danger of Japanese encroachment or even direct annexation. Japan already demanded the closure of the Burma Road earlier, and Vichy France demonstrated the difficulty of holding on to Far East colonies.
  
• Britain was quickly running their down their reserves and is increasingly taking on a burdensome amount of public debt. Even in total victory, it will be unlikely any reparation will enough to make up for the loss in treasure and life. Britain's debt to the US, to continue fighting, will mean effective economical subservience to the Americans in a post war world as they shoulder enormous tax burden in paying off any debts.
  
• Ideologically and practically, Soviet Russia must have been equally repulsive and dangerous to Britain as Nazi Germany. Moreover, Russian influence in Central Asia was a direct threat to British India and the Middle East in ways Nazi Germany could not be, with Stalin having demonstrated ample appetite for territorial conquests.
  

Hence, looking at the above, logically Britain could have come to terms and settlement with Germany to perhaps focused on holding onto her Empire and directly addressing challenges from Imperial Japan and Soviet Russia to her more important Asian colonies.
In short, why did Britain continue the war in fall of 1940 after the battle of Britain?

Syria – After the fall of Germany, 9th January 1946 protests erupted in Syria calling for independence, reaching its peak 18th January. France answered by force, eventually killing over a thousand Syrians by January. Shukri al-Quwatli escaped French arrest and contacted Winston Churchill. As the Conference of Foreign Ministers was held in Paris, Syria became a point of discussion also, French military action was condemned by all and by diplomatic means France was forced to retreat from Syria and Lebanon and recognise their independence (15.2.1946). Britain used the crisis to strengthen its influence, however unlike OTL did to directly occupy Syria as events in Syria are at the same time as the Conference in Paris. The British promised the French they would withdraw as well. Syrian independence was officially declared on 14 June 1946.
In 1947 Syria held its first parliamentary election, and a year later Shukri al-Quwatli was re-elected president. Syria had a rocky relationship with neighbouring Hashemite monarchies. Nationalist Quwatli manoeuvred in more and more hostile relations between powers and its interests (US, UK, USSR). Syria opposed the partition of Palestine and co-founded “Arab Liberation Army''. Defeat in Palestine heavily damaged the popularity of Quwatli, he regained some of it by refusing singing of Armistice with Israel (unlike others) and voicing support to anti-American riots (Summer 1949 due to Taft’s recognition of Israel). 28 September 1949 Quwatli demoted army chief Husni al-Za'im and replaced him by Sami al-Hinnawi. Major is shift is that due to American non-intervention the US backed 1949 coup never occurs. Under international pressure an armistice was eventually signed between Syria and Israel in November 1949. No demilitarised zone in Golan Heights as OTL. Syria adopted a neutralist policy, seeking relations both with the British, USSR, India, USA and Yugoslavia, but was most seen as a pro-British state. Syria became close to Egypt after the Egyptian Revolution. In 1952 parliamentary elections brought victory for the oppositional People’s Party and the rise of Ba’ath and SSNP. April 1953 presidential election, as Syrian constitution limited president to two terms, Quwatli handpicked Sabri Al-Asali as his successor.
Egypt – 2-3 November 1945 anti-Jewish riots in Egypt, since it was still during the war, riots were violently put down by the British forces. Since 1946 large anti-British demonstrations and riots. During 1947 negotiations about British withdrawal were held, however collapsed after Winston Churchill’s opposition to withdraw troops as response massive violent anti-British riots erupted (June 1947), forcing Churchill to agree to withdrawal to Suez Canal but keeping there large force, Churchill attempted to sign treaty that would guarantee British presence in Suez, but Egyptians rejected it. By end of 1948, British presence was limited to the Suez area. May to 20 July 1949 (signing of armistice) war in Palestine. After the war anti-British sentiments grew. 3 January 1950 victory of conservative and nationalist Wafd party, Mostafa el-Nahas became the new prime minister. His government refused to push any important reforms and was also very corrupt, further strengthening resentment amongst Egyptian people. Unlike OTL CIA is not attempting to persuade Farouk into reforms (it was codenamed “Fat Fucker” LMAO) 17 November 1951 Nahas unilaterally abrogated the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty, wave of nationalism, Britian refused to leave Suez, tensions escalated into Battle of Ismailia (25 February 1952) – a violent clash between Egyptian militias and British forces. 26 January 1952 news resulted in massive anti-British protests that set Cairo on fire and greatly damaged support of the king and government. Country fell into instability, the government was dismissed and several different ones followed, as in our reality.
The Free Officers Movement (formed already in the 1940s) successfully orchestrated the Egyptian Revolution (23 August 1952). Power was transferred to nine-member Revolution Command Council (RCC), king Farouk abdicated, went into exile and was replaced with regency. RCC launched large scale reforms: land, tax, reducing privileges of government officials. First post-revolutionary prime minister Aly Maher Pasha resigned due to disagreements with the military coming from his traditional political background. He was succeeded by Abd El-Razzak El-Sanhuri, legal scholar promoting transition to civilian rule (10 October). Political parties were purged, however due to Sanhuri’s influence not banned. During spring 1953, conflict between Sanhuri and Naguib escalated. Camps began to develop, one was represented by Naguib and his loyalists who aligned themselves with Muslim Brotherhood, and other headed by Nasser and Sanhuri, aligned with HADITU and Wafd.
Newly created Provisional National Assembly, approved a new secular constitution, Nasser was named president (18 July 1953) with support of Wafd and HADITU. In summer 1953 Muslim Brotherhood started large riots and demonstrations against the new constitution, they gained outside CIA support, as they were sceptical of Nasser’s alliance with HADITU. Power struggle between Naguib, who still had key positions in RCC continued.
Lebanon – 7 June 1946 withdrawal of French forces, independence declared already in 1943. Around 100,000 Palestinians came to Lebanon after the war. In 1951 prime minister Riad Al Solh survived assassination attempt and remained prime minister until 1952, when he was replaced by Chamoun with Saeb Salam. 18 September 1952 first president Bechara El Khoury forced to step down after anti-corruption protests, 23 September Camille Chamoun became president, under his leadership country experience growth and stability. Chamoun also secured the majority of power in his hands.
(Trans)Jordan– Achieved independence 25 November 1946, as in our reality a large number of Palestinian refugees and annexation of the West Bank. 20 July 1951 king Abdullah was assassinated by Palestinian radical. Prior to his assassination Britain unlike OTL supported Abdullah in promoting his other son Naif to become new heir (due to Britain being more anxious about losing influence, rather favouring openly pro-British monarch) Naif is unpopular amongst people due to being seen just as a British puppet. 1 January 1952 new constitution – Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Iraq – Britain wants to maintain military presence in Iraq and Nuri al-Said his power, since 1946 large left-wing protests and strikes, that resulted in massacre of workers. Government instituted severe repression, banning Communist party and arresting many communists, including leadership. 29 March 1947 Salih Jabr became prime minister, under his rule 15 January 1948 Anglo-Iraqi treaty was signed, making Iraq de-facto British protectorate, Iraqi oil controlled by Iraq Petroleum Company. To protest this treaty massive protests erupted – Al-Wathbah uprising – all Iraqi opposition joined – Communist, Independence parties, Liberal and National Democrats. Salih’s government fell, and the prime minister escaped to London, the new government under Nuri responded with martial law and massive crackdowns, numerous massacres. This timeline demonstrations got so intense that in February British troops entered Iraq to “pacify” them. Parties involved unlike OTL were formally banned after 1948 uprising and Nuri consolidated his power and firm support of Britain. In 1948 Constitutional Union Party was formed by Nuri and it became dominant ruling party. Unlike OTL Nuri remained in position of prime minister since 1948 to 1952. After Palestine war, Nuri expelled all Jews from Iraq (1950). Since 1951 terms of treaty were changed with the new Labour government and Iraq got 50% of its oil revenue.
23 September - 23 December 1952 another major protests inspired by Egyptian revolution and Iranian protests erupted – Iraqi Intifada. Nuri was dismissed by regent Abd al-Ilah and replaced by reformist general Taha al-Hashimi (30 September), who negotiated with protestors. However, under British pressure Taha was ousted and replaced by general Nureddin Mahmud (3 December), who instead rejected negotiated terms, started harsh repressions and crushed the uprising. Power was transferred into civilian leadership after the 29 March 1953 unfree election, independent Mustafa Mahmud al-Umari became the new prime minister, while Nuri still controlled the country from the shadows. In May 1953 Faisal II assumed power as king. Since 1952 the idea of unification of Jordan with Iraq was often discussed.
Saudi Arabia – Nothing to change, post-war rise due to finding of oil revenues, US keeps close relations even under Taft. 9 November 1953 reign of king Saud began.
Oman&Muscat – Nothing significant in this period.
Kingdom of Yemen –failed al-Waziri coup attempt, Iman Yahia was killed (17 February 1948), however Ahmad bin Yahya ascended to the throne instead. Autocratic rule. He was opposed to the British.
British Arab Colonies – 1952 Trucial States Council formed, British supervised body.
Iran
Long Iranian Crisis
Occupied by Allied powers in 1943. Western powers are less keen to withdraw from Iran, due to the stronger Soviet Union (and also due to Churchill). According to treaty all troops shall withdraw after 6 months after the war’s end (10 November 1946). This was approved by the Hamburg conference in May 1946. By November thanks to rising suspicions nobody starts doing that (Soviets would stay anyway as they did in our reality, major change is that West stays too). The Iranian Crisis became a key event showing those deep tensions in the early cold war and it was a great mistake to overlook it. Truman doctrine is also connected to Iran.
United Nations Resolutions pushed by Iran tried to deal with the situation (Autumn 1946), however without success. Another point that almost solved this crisis was Ahmad Qavam’s proposal to give Soviet Union oil rights in Northern Iran and official Iranian proclamation wishing withdrawal of all powers, this was approved by Stalin, but rejected by Pahlavi and the West (November 1946), Qavam was dismissed in January 1948 after election, replaced by Ebrahim Hakimi. With that crisis escalated to the creation of the Azerbaijan People's Government (20 February 1947) and Republic of Mahabad (18 March 1947).
Through 1947 Kurdish and Azerbaijan states in Northern Iran started to emancipate and establish popular support. Situation seemed to develop along the lines of Austria, talks stalled after the US occupation of Greenland. With hostile relations between powers in 1948, Iran continued to be a hotspot of tensions. The Pahlavi regime and separatists both obtained military aid.
In March 1949 US troops withdrew from Iran, during the Geneva Conference (September 1949 to May 1950), states agreed to finally withdraw all troops (Soviets agreed presumably to secure their interests in Germany during negotiations), so Soviets and British finally left in March-June 1950. In 1949 also an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Shah took place (4 February 1949), it was blamed on communists and Tudeh Party was banned and communists persecuted.
Beginning of the North Iran War and British-Iranian Treaty
As Soviets finally withdrew, Shah and prime minister Haj Ali Razmara started offensive operations towards the North (31 August 1950), however separatist states were better equipped, because they received Soviet aid in previous years and thus managed to repeal the first offensive. While fighting against what was presented as continuous Soviet occupation, utilizing nationalist wave as redirection of attention of Iranians from it, Razmara signed the AIOC-Iran agreement, which institutionalised British control over Iranian oil (7 March 1951). However, it still created massive resentment, riots and protests that led to violence. During spring 1951 massive opposition against Razmara, who sought to become a strongman leader, emerged, encompassing everyone from Islamists to liberals and communists. The National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh became the main opposition platform.
In April Majlis rejected Razmara’s decree granting him de-facto limited dictatorial powers, which he sought to obtain to “restore order”, so it was dissolved by Shah in response (20 April) and Razmara secured power with declaration of martial law, it was met with Ayatollah Kashani calling for holy war against Razmara and the British, leading to another massive wave of upheaval in April-May 1951, that was brutally repressed with many deaths. 9 June 1951 Razmara was assassinated and killed by radical Islamist member of Fadaiyan e-Islam, Hossein Ala was installed by Shah. Pahlavi used this crisis to boost his own power. National Front was banned in July. These events left great resentments in Iranian society against ruling regime. Tudeh started armed insurgency, it was however between 1952-1953 completely crushed. Mosaddegh escaped to France. In late 1952 to early 1953 an election was held to elect new Majlis, it was rigged and all elected were “independents”.
Through 1951 the front moved in favour of Iran, however separatists with Soviet support continued to hold on. After the Iranian-British Treaty, Stalin began to see Iranian re-conquest of the North as danger for the USSR and provided significant aid, leading to stalemate in 1952.
Afghanistan – Nothing significant in this period, tribal revolts in the 1940s.
Libya – Occupied by the UK and France. 1949 UN resolution about its independence, it was achieved 24 December 1951, it became a constitutional monarchy under king Idris I.
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria – After the Paris Conference of 1952, voices calling for independence are stronger. Tunisian Habib Bourguiba and Farhat Hached entered negotiations with the Thorez government in June 1952, after which France agreed to immediate widespread autonomy Tunisian and pledging to give it full independence before 1954. The same agreement was reached with Moroccan sultan Mohammed V. More difficult situation was in Algeria. Political party calling for independence National Liberation Front was formed 23 April 1952 led by Ferhat Abbas. Negotiations about Algerian status started, in the next month. This topic was too sensitive in France, so agreement was limited to giving Algeria autonomy as part of France for now with further negotiations about independence being open. Algerians were unhappy, as neighbours got a much better deal. Algeria was still de-facto part of metropolitan France, more power was given to the Algerian Assembly, to which a free election was promised to be held in spring 1953.
Cyprus – After the fall of the mainland, the Kingdom of Greece advocated for union. In 1952 an unofficial referendum about unification with Greece, led by Orthodox Church was held, over 80% voted for union. Unlike OTL Britain was supportive of the idea of union (to strengthen the Greek state), but as it was a viable military base, they did not want to retreat.
British India
On 10-20 November 1945 British and Indian leaders met during Simla Conference; these talks stalled due to question of Muslims. Wavell Plan proposed to Churchill by viceroy Wavell, promoted Indianisation and postwar independence, however, was rejected by Churchill (December 1945). During 1946 elections to central administration were held. After Churchill’s victory, the British prime minister (May 1946) replaced Wavell with Louis Mountbatten (5 August 1946). Summer of 1946 was marked by massive protests for independence, mutinies and violence. In Autumn 1946 Cabinet Mission was sent to discuss granting more autonomy and dominion status. Eventually they planned to create one federal state, however it was strongly opposed by the Indian Muslim League. Hindu-Muslim tensions were escalating with 16 January 1947 “Direct Action Day'' massive Muslim riots and violence. In early 1947 provincial elections were held that resulted in victory of INC or IML according to ethnic and religious lines. Results of the provincial elections clearly show opposition towards British rule.
Inspired by events in Burma and Vietnam, Communist Party of India initiated nationwide anti-British “Indian People’s Liberation Uprising” (May 1947 to 1952), its estimated over 150,000 peasants joining it. Its strength shocked Britain, attempting to crush it; the British relied on local militants and Indian forces. In May 1947 Churchill officially announced that British Raj would be transformed into two dominions. Britain established the Radcliffe Commission that established the borders of two dominions (April to December); the demarcation line was published 18 December 1947. Population transfer in Punjab was organised by Britain from August, however mass migration (that started even before partition itself happened) in other provinces shocked British officials, however Britain quickly took over migration and regulated it (thus it is lesser humanitarian catastrophe, but still it is a huge humanitarian catastrophe, estimated from 100 000 deaths to half million), migration lasted from December 1947 to mid-1950.
1 August 1948 – two British dominions – India and Pakistan came to existence. British forces remained present here, and the British monarch remained its head of state. British officials spoke about “autonomy within the Empire'' while Indians spoke about Independence. The Kashmir deal proposed by India is also pushed by the UK and is successful (in real life Pakistan rejected it) – All of Kashmir is Pakistani, while Pakistan stops claiming Hyderabad, this nullifies the existence of Sino-Indian War.
Dominion of India – Mountbatten remained a powerful governor-general, and the first Indian prime minister became Jawaharlal Nehru. Radical Hindu nationalist assassinated Gandhi as in our reality (30 January 1948) even before split itself happened. 1948-1949 integration of princely states, in some cases with help of communist rebels. Communist rebellion continues as Dominion of India is considered by them just another British colonial state. Nehru successfully passed the Constitution of India (26 January 1952) and expelled British troops. In April 1952 an agreement was reached with communists to end (already weak) uprising and to participate in political life in democratic independent India. 25 June– 21 October 1952 democratic general election was held, victory of INC, compared to our reality CPN get more support. Neutral foreign policy.
Dominion of Pakistan – First Pakistani prime minister Muhammad Ali Jinnah (position of governor-general, that was much more powerful compared to Canada for example, remained in British hands, was held by Cyril Radcliffe) died 11 September 1948, he was succeeded by Liaquat Ali Khan. Pakistan became pro-British oriented, but also established relations with socialist states. Ali Khan wanted Pakistan to become a parliamentary democracy. Muslim League faced major leftist opposition, in March 1951 socialist attempted coup (Rawalpindi conspiracy), which was exposed and failed. He was assassinated 16 October 1951. The British governor general named Malik Ghulam Muhammad as new prime minister. In August 1951 first elections in Pakistan were held, communists and socialists were not allowed to participate, victory of the United Front (East Bengal). Urdu was the only official language, while all eastern part spoke Bengal. In March 1952 Bengali protesters were massacred by police and military. From February to March 1953 large (in reality anti-Ahmadis, this timeline against British rule) riots in Lahore, ended in bloody military crackdown. In the aftermath of riots Cyril Radcliffe was recalled by Attlee and replaced by Frank Messervy.
Edit: adjusted India timeline
Burma – After the surrender of the Japanese in April 1946, military rule was reinstated in Burma. On 27 January 1947 British governor Reginald Dorman-Smith ordered the arrest of Aung San, this led into a massive rebellion of the AFPFL (Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League) and its armed wing People's Volunteer Organization with membership over 100,000 which started the Burmese Emergency. Moderates advocated for the governor to release Aung San and start negotiations, however this was shut down by Churchill, who preferred to use force. British forces failed to deal with the uprising and in 1947 large parts of Burma were controlled by AFPFL. During this uprising period and the arrest of Aung San, communist gained substantial influence. Churchill responded with increasing military presence, however after the eruption of another major anti-colonial rebellion in Malaya, British forces were with priority sent there. In 1950 AFPFL defeated colonial forces in several major engagements. Attlee decided to abandon Burma in favour of Malaya, Aung San was released (7 April 1951) and entered negotiations with Attlee, together with other leaders of the war of independence (June-September) and later negotiations between AFPFL and minorities (12 October, Panglong Agreement). Ceasefire and election on 9 March 1952, that resulted in the victory of AFPFL, Aung San became prime minister and officially declared independence of the Union of Burma (10 March 1952).
Aung San became the first prime minister, while Kyaw Nyein the first president. CPB left AFPFL and became the main opposition (Unlike OTL there is no communist insurgency against Burmese government or split in the communist party). Burma focused on social reforms, welfare state and industrialisation. Burma adopted a neutral foreign policy, however inclining more towards socialist bloc, closer relations with Yugoslavia and surprisingly Israel. Burma still has to deal with KMT remnants in the North and Karen insurgency.

Next month will be two years since my boyfriend (22M) and I (22W) broke up. We started dating in 2019, which was the summer before out senior year of highschool. Prior to us dating, I accepted a college offer in Florida and he planned on going to aviation school in our home state in the midwest. Everything was perfect when we were together and we had no problems. It was the healthiest relationship, that made me feel on top of the world. We would do spontaneous stuff all the time, hangout almost everyday, and he was my absolute best friend.
The first year at college came around quick. He helped move me into my dorm and the day we left each other we were both crying in the airport. We both would visit at least once a month the first year and everything was normal. Towards the end of our first year in college and seemed to stop caring and trying much less. I was the only one asking to facetime, planning trips to see one another, and virtual dates. He was in aviation school and had to spend a great amount of time with his studies and flying, so I tried to understand that we are both just busy. He started to make a ton of friends, which was different thatn me because I was only allowed to be in my dorm due to covid so my only friends were my roomates.
This was a bit of a change because he would be busy often with his friends and I would sometimes feel like a loser when I would be waiting around for his calls.. but when he would call I would get SO excited and it was the beset part of my day. The calls started to be less and less. I would call him too of course, but he started to seem to have less and less time for me.
My sophomore year the relationship gradually started to get worse. He forgot to buy me anything for Valentines day and forgot my birthday. He would constantly miss online dates I was planning ( I planned because he didn't make initiative to). All I ever told him was that it didn't matter at all what he got me EVER, I just really appreciate the thought. I even told him I would send him the card and as long as he wrote in it I would love it (now looking back.. pathetic). After valentines, he said happy birthday on the wrong day and sent me an e-gift card to chipotle to my email. Of course I appreciated anything, but I was sad because I knew once again that he just hadn't cared enough and forgotten.
The thing that really changed our relationship was when I caught him lying about going to a strip club. I personally don't like strip clubs. I have been and find it disgusting. The men watch like absolute dogs and often times show little respect for the women. My boyfriend's friends on facetime would say " Can he go to the strip club? Come on! The place has ugly strippers anyways so It'll be funny". I said he can do whatever he wants and whatever he finds respectful to our relationship. I had the discussion in private with my boyfriend before and he showed no interest in going to a strip club and has declined himself in the past. Either way if they were going to either make fun or these women or to observe hot women, I find it disrepectful.
I ended up finding out via his friends snapchat story that they went. I confronted him the next morning and he tried lying and saying they didnt go. He ended up admitting and apologizing and saying he "knew I would be mad". I was more bothered that he lied to me rather than the fac the actually went. I NEVERRR took him for someone who would lie. He always told the truth because he didn't see any point in lying. In highschool one of his friends got caught smoking and his parents asked if he did it. Even though he wasn't even caught he just said yes because he said he saw no point in lying to them. There were just so many indications that he wasn't someone I would ever have to worry abou tlying or cheating. We fully trusted each other and were always honest.
This changed the dynamic for myself and I stopped trusting him. I remember checking through his phone once, which is something I would never ever imagine myself doing. At this time I was struggling with mental illness bad which didn't help the situation for me. I found nothing on his phone except for all pictures of us and messages between us and his family. I felt really guilty and knew I should never had done it, but I knew I no longer had trusted him the same anymore, which would eventually never come back.
Fast forward a few months into sophmore year of college and we start talkin gless and less. He was going without talking to me for days, I probably could've been missing for 48 hours and he wouldnt have known lolll. I eventually asked if he didn't want to be together anymore and got a "Thats what its feeling like" so I called it off from there. I discussed with him his lack of effort and he said it was because of the distance. Me personally, I am someone who would rather wait 2 years until we are out of college rather than never see him again,, but that feeling was not mutual. He also told me it just " wasn't fun anymore" , I needed to work on myself, and that he felt like he didn't know how to help me at times ( I have bad depression but often tried not to show it to him)
We went no contact for months and then ended up seeing each other again. We saw eachother for three days and slept together on the last day. I remember crying in his bathroom the last day because I knew it wasn't right and nothing changed. Since It just really didn't seem like anything changed and I distanced myself after this trip. We really didn't talk after that and within a short few months he had a new girlfriend. I was not surprised from this because he had never gone long without being in a relationship and seemed to always be in one since we knew each other from a young age. He was my first boyfriend and first person I had ever had sex with, so I think this has something to do with why I am having a hard time getting over it.
When we first broke up I would check his socials all the time and even found he had a new girlfriend from his Venmo account. I couldnt help myself from looking and would make myself feel worse everytime i looked. This last 6 months to a year I have really tried to not look at all his stuff, but I CONSTANTLY have dreams of him. Sometimes more than others, but I would say I at least have one dream every two weeks. This week I have dreamed about him the past three days every time i close my eyes. The dreams range from being happy to sad to angry. Lately they have been happy, but I try hard to differentiate that the dream is really not who he is.
He changed over the years we were together, and by the time we were done it just was not the same guy I fell in love with. My issues are the constant dreams reminding me of him and the fact I still feel really crushed over it. I don't understand how he could say he wanted to be with me forever and is my soul mate, and then do that to me. I often have questioned if Love is real after the break up, and find it hard believing I will ever find a connection like that again. I find it extremely hard to find someone I have feeling for in a romantic way because I refuse to drop my standards and the fish in the sea are seeming a little limited.
My question is how can I get over this broken heart? I feel I have done the right things and have not slept around with anyone, went to the gym, started new hobbies, but the aching feeling doesn't go away. It's felt unbearable lately and I feel the similar chest pain as the initial heartbreak. I want to move on and not feel sadness towards this anymore.

So in my mocks, when they said “write your name and details” I would but then I’d quickly on the front start writing stuff that was in my short term memory.
So for an example just before in the exam I knew that Stalin died in 1853, I’d quickly right that down when she said to write your name.
Is this cheating as I’m not looking inside the paper?

Hello,
I've finally managed to beat Germans as USSR (Hooray!), however it was far from efficient run. So I'd like to ask for dome advice for my future runs.
The current run:

1. Historical on, no mods. I've played more or less historical too (Stalin, Molotov-Ribbentrop, Annexed Baltics, Puppeted Finland (and did not call it to war)), waited until Germans attack me, non agression with Japan...
2. My industry was pretty OK (nothing stellar, but good enough for defense) at the start of the war
3. Set up a defense line Behind Daugava/Dnieper, managed to get the static AA to max and Forts to 7ish at the start, and upgraded them to 10 pretty soon after.
4. Abandoned everything west of the defense line, scorched earth the areas that would be taken be Germans
5. In the early stages, Germans tried to break through the defenses, but failed miserably (roughly 1:10 losses ratio). Pretty soon I've also managed to beat Luftwaffe so I had Air superiority
6. However, at some point (in retrospect, it might have been at the same time when I've maxed the forts, I've dealt them toughly 1 mil losses at that time) Germans just stopped suiciding themselves and that's where the posts title comes in. We were both dug in on our respective sides of the river, both with 500+ defense unable to break the others frontline. I've tried to break the front at the time, but was unable to, or only with massive losses (unsustainable all the way to Berlin). I've also tried naval invasion to Germany, but failed miserably (lost 3 full armies, mainly due to overestimating the supplies provided by a port).
7. Later, Japan attacked, but they posed pretty much no threat and were quickly dealt with
8. The European war was pretty much stale until late 40s, the Germany lost to me about 3.5 mil (of which 1 mil was lost during 6) ) at that time. And had another 3-6 mil manpower in reserve.
9. What finally broke them, was Turkey joining axis and opening a second front with me. Axis diverted lots of troops to the Caucasus frontline, where I just nuked (50ish nukes in total) them (they had lots of 15-30 stacks at a single tile there) and slowly pushed into Anatolia. Which finally drained the manpower of Germany to zero and allowed me to push the main frontline (Allies also invaded France at this point, so even less troops to deal with)
10. The war ended in the 50s :-/

Problem:
Based on the Above, what should have I done differently? I think airforce could be a solution, but I am probably using it wrongly. As Mentioned, I've had Air superiority for majority of the war, I've also used CAS (set them to ground support and logistic strikes) but IIUC, they bomb only when the troops are in active combat and not when they are just standing there. When the Japan Declared I've made a few strats, but not enough to make a difference, I've totally ignored Tacs.
As for my attack divs, I've used mainly 8/8 (later 10/10) mech/medium with the standard supports, later added some SPG to them, I've also used 8(10) mechs to hold the ground after push. Had also a full mountaineer 7/2art army, but used it mainly as a reserve and later in the Turkish front.
Doctrines: CAS for air, Mass (the left branch) for Ground.
I could have tried to nuke the Germans earlier, however, the tooltip said that I would lose support/stab (not sure which one is it) if I do so. Not sure whether it's a tooltip bug or whether nuking own territory that is occupied by enemy really hurts you.
Edit: Thanks everyone for the replies!
I am currently doing another run and so far it goes well (jun 42, haven't lost a single province, my losses are 160k, Germany's 2Mil +1 extra mil from allies).
What I've done differently:

1. Ignored tanks so far and focused on inf+engineers+aa+art and fighter planes plus one factory making train art, planning to start producing tanks soon
2. Dug in on the German/Hungarian/Romanian borders, did not fall back to the rivers this time.
3. Limited the forts to level 5+1 from the focus, Germans are still trying to get through but failing. I've tried defending without forts in the previous runs and it didn't go too well, so going completely without them is not something I am comfortable with now.
4. Placed a full army group on the German border, three armies on the Romanian/Hungarian borders. Currently have one extra Army group in training (currently 1/3 of the second AG is deployed).
5. Using Superior Firepower (the support branch) this time instead of Mass mob.

A friend of mine posted the following wall of text on Facebook. I feel the need to respond somehow but I’m not sure what to say. All these years later I still fear Hell and this post bothers me on a moral level.
Should I counter with “why would a loving god do this?” Should I refute the quotes which I doubt? Should I ask why Christians seem to relish the idea of people going to Hell?

“FAMOUS ATHEISTS' LAST WORDS BEFORE DEATH: 1. ANTON LEVEY—Author of the Satanic Bible and high priest of the religion dedicated to the worship of Satan. One of his famous quotes was: “There is a beast in man that needs to be exercised, not exorcised”. His dying words were: "Oh my, oh my, what have I done, there is something very wrong. . . there is something very wrong.”

1. GANDHI—At his death, he said, “For the first time in 50 years, I find myself in the slough of despond. All about me is darkness. . .I am praying for light.”
   
2. THOMAS PAYNE—The leading atheistic writer in American colonies: "Stay with me, for God's sake; I cannot bear to be left alone , O Lord, help me! O God, what have I done to suffer so much? What will become of me hereafter? I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. 0 Lord, help me! Christ, help me! No, don't leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one."
   
3. SIR THOMAS SCOTT—Chancellor of England: "Until this moment I thought there was neither a God nor a hell. Now I know and feel that there are both, and I am doomed to perdition by the just judgment of the Almighty."
   
4. VOLTAIRE—famous anti-christian atheist: "I have swallowed nothing but smoke. I have intoxicated myself with the incense that turned my head. I am abandoned by God and man.” He said to his physician, Dr. Fochin: “I will give you half of what I am worth if you will give me six months of life." When he was told this was not possible, he said “Then I shall die and go to hell!" His nurse said: “For all the money in Europe I wouldn’t want to see another unbeliever die! All night long he cried for forgiveness.”
   
5. ROBERT INGERSOLL—American writer and orator during the Golden Age of Free Thought: "O God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul!" Some say it was said this way: "Oh God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul, from hell, if there be a hell!
   
6. DAVID HUME—Atheist philosopher famous for his philosophy of empiricism and skepticism of religion: He cried loud on his death bed "I am in flames!" It is said his desperation was a horrible scene.
   
7. NAPOLEON BONAPARTE—French emperor who, like Adolf Hitler, brought death to millions to satisfy his greedy, power-mad, selfish ambitions for world conquest: "I die before my time, and my body will be given back to the earth. Such is the fate of him who has been called the great Napoleon. What an abyss between my deep misery and the eternal kingdom of Christ!”
   
8. SIR FRANCIS NEWPORT—Head of an English Atheist club, to those gathered around his deathbed: "You need not tell me there is no God, for I know there is one, and that I am in his presence! You need not tell me there is no hell. I feel myself already slipping. Wretches, cease your idle talk about there being hope for me! I know I am lost forever! Oh, that fire! Oh, the insufferable pangs of hell! Oh, that I could lie for a thousand years upon the fire that is never quenched, to purchase the favor of God and be united to Him again. But it is a fruitless wish. Millions and millions of years will bring me no nearer the end of my torments than one poor hour. Oh, eternity, eternity forever and forever! Oh, the insufferable pangs of Hell!”
   
9. CHARLES IX—The French king. Urged on by his mother, he gave the order for the massacre of the French Huguenots, in which 15,000 souls were slaughtered in Paris alone and 100,000 in other sections of France, for no other reason than that they loved Christ. The guilty king suffered miserably for years after that event. He finally died, bathed in blood bursting from his veins. To his physicians, he said in his last hours: "Asleep or awake, I see the mangled forms of the Huguenots passing before me. They drop with blood. They point at their open wounds. Oh! That I had spared at least the little infants at the bosom! What blood! I know not where I am. How will all this end? What shall I do? I am lost forever! I know it. Oh, I have done wrong."
   
10. DAVID STRAUSS—Leading representative of German rationalism, after spending a lifetime erasing belief in God from the minds of others: "My philosophy leaves me utterly forlorn! I feel like one caught in the merciless jaws of an automatic machine, not knowing at what time one of its great hammers may crush me!"
    
11. JOSEF STALIN—Soviet Georgian revolutionary and politician. In a Newsweek interview with Svetlana Stalin, the daughter of Josef Stalin, she told of her father's death: "My father died a difficult and terrible death. . .God grants an easy death only to the just. At what seemed the very last moment, he suddenly opened his eyes and cast a glance over everyone in the room. It was a terrible glance, insane or perhaps angry. His left hand was raised, as though he were pointing to something above and bringing down a curse on us all. The gesture was full of menace. . .the next moment he was dead."
    
12. CAESAR BORGIA—Italian nobleman, politician, and cardinal: "While I lived, I provided for everything but death; now I must die, and am unprepared to die."
    
13. THOMAS HOBBS—Political philosopher: "I say again, if I had the whole world at my disposal, I would give it to live one day. I am about to take a leap into the dark."
    

BELOVED, compare these last words from atheists, with these last words, from these saints of God:
THE APOSTLE PAUL: “O death, where is thy sting?”
KING DAVID: “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no Evil.”
AUGUSTUS MONTAGUE TOPLADY (1710-1778): Toplady will ever be famous as the author of one of the most evangelical hymns of the eighteenth century, "Rock of Ages," which was first published in 1776. During the final illness, Toplady was greatly supported by the consolations of the gospel: "The consolations of God, to so unworthy a wretch, are so abundant that he leaves me nothing to pray for but their continuance." Near his last, awaking from a sleep, he said: "Oh, what delights! Who can fathom the joy of the third heaven? The sky is clear, there is no cloud; come Lord Jesus, come quickly!" He died saying:"No mortal man can live after the glories which God has manifested to my soul."
Lastly, JESUS CHRIST said: “I Am the Resurrection and the Life. He that believeth on Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”
Only fools never learn from history, and it's amazing that even in our days, with all these facts on our fingertips, someone with a mind can devote his entire life to a delusion, and want everyone to know that there is no God. No wonder the bible says,
"Only fools say in their hearts, there is no God." (Psalm 14:1).“
Copied from Christian Page

I recently finished The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen and absolutely loved it. His blend of absurdist comedy and serious rage worked really well, the dude is an amazing writer, and the questions he asks may make you question your entire way of thinking.
Anyways, I wrote an essay (actually a video essay but can't link to that here) about my takeaways from the novel. It's very long so apologies, if you want to watch in video form I'll put it in the comments.

The greatest art makes you question. Question who you are, what you believe. Question the assumptions you make about the world around you. Question the fabric of reality, the nature of being. Question free will or fate. Question systemic influences of behavior, or intrinsic human desires. It does not answer, at least it doesn’t provide easy answers, because in these we find a more shallow understanding of ourselves and of the world’s complexity.
The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen is one of these great pieces of art. Its questions are not concerned with your preexisting notions of the Vietnam War, nor will it dichotomize the opposing sides into good and bad, right and wrong. The complexities of the War are not simplified, and our American-centric perspective is challenged at every turn. If you read closely and mindfully, you may finish the book having examined the very nature of your way of thinking, our collective desire to neatly place thought into ideological boxes that give us an easy position on any issue.
Part 1: A Man of Two Faces
In Viet Than Nguyen’s eyes, the Vietnam War had no “winners”. The communist revolutionaries were victorious, yes, but at what cost? 20 years of brutal, deathly war tore the country apart. Somewhere between two and six million died, between the Viet Cong, South Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Americans, and Koreans. The country was poisoned, its lands decimated by constant shelling, napalming, and use of pesticides by the US. Not to mention the 2.5 million refugees created by the war, and the hundreds of thousands of civilians that were massacred by all sides.
Nguyen isn’t interested in picking sides in the war. People on each side, he says, perpetrated lies, hypocrisies, failures, stupidities, vile immorality, and corruption. These people may have known what they were doing was immoral, or they may have bought so completely into their respective ideology that they were blinded to their sins. Whatever the case, it was their very ideologies they used to justify their actions.
The story simply presents a story, fictionalized but rooted in truth, and makes you think for yourself. The story’s protagonist, whose name is not revealed so I’ll refer to him as “the narrator”, is a perfect vehicle for the nuanced examination of the Vietnam War that Nguyen wishes to present.
The Narrator is “a sleeper, a spy, a spook, a man of two faces … able to see any issue from both sides.” He is also a “half-breed,” a product of his mother’s rape by a French priest, and a womanizer, alcoholic, misogynist, and a murderer.
But I think Nguyen’s message goes further than simply seeing an issue from “both sides”. There are many sides to any issue, and seeing the world through a false dichotomy not only limits your understanding of its complexity, but if vilifies, or in some cases idealizes, the “other” and distracts your attention from truth. For instance, any US perspective on the war—pro or anti—is ultimately an American perspective that ignores Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian suffering.
The narrator’s split psychology—as a bastard, a revolutionary masquerading as a capitalist, and later, a non-white in the U.S.—mirrors Nguyen’s own experience as a Vietnamese refugee living in America since a boy of 4 years. Nguyen said in a talk with Politics + Prose that as a child, he felt “deeply, intimately American.” But as Nguyen went to college and educated himself, he began to see America through clear eyes. He never felt belonging in America, and when he eventually visited Vietnam as an adult, he felt out of place for a parallel set of reasons.
The story begins just before the Fall (or Liberation, depending on your POV) of Saigon, and during this first act, we also meet three key characters, “blood brothers” who sealed their eternal friendship in blood at 14: the narrator, Bon, and Man, who is the narrator’s handler and main contact within the North Vietnamese army. As the city falls, Bon and the Narrator escape to the US, and much of the story follows their experiences as refugees from the war.
For the sake of concision, I’m going to skip ahead to two plot lines that best illustrate my point—the Narrator’s work on a Hollywood blockbuster about the Vietnam War, and another plotline I won’t reveal yet, as it spoils the last act of the book.
But know that there is so much more to this novel: Nguyen’s expert use of satirical humor, somehow finding the right balance between absurdist comedy and serious rage while he explores the collective trauma of his people brought on by a needless war and its aftermath. One of my favorite instances of satire involves a wild “Oriental Studies” Professor with a fetishistic obsession with all things “Oriental”, including the narrator’s embodiment of the “symbiosis of Orient and Occident,” a statement that causes the narrator to “clear my throat of a sour taste. (p. 65)”. But let’s set aside the satire, and for a moment, focus on the rage.
Part 2: Asian American Rage
In the U.S., The narrator finds work as an “authenticity consultant” on a film called The Hamlet, which bears suspicious resemblance to Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, but really serves as an allegory for Hollywood in general and how it marginalizes and mocks minorities all while propagandizing America and softening its image, not only to its citizens, but to the world that eagerly consumes its products.
“Movies were America’s way of softening up the rest of the world, Hollywood relentlessly assaulting the mental defenses of audiences with the hit, the smash, the spectacle, the blockbuster, and yes, even the box office bomb. (p. 172)”
The narrator went into the project with good intentions, hoping to promote more respectful and accurate representation of his people, but quickly discovers that, “The longer I worked on the Movie, the more I was convinced that I was not only a technical consultant on an artistic project, but an infiltrator into a work of propaganda.”
If you are rolling your eyes or doubting Nguyen’s criticism, I’d point you to this video, which I’ll link below: The US Government’s Not-So-Secret Propaganda Department. Not only does the Department of Defense pay for and help produce many Hollywood cash-cows—including but not limited to, Captain America, Top Gun, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, King Kong, Jurassic Park, Karate Kid, Godzilla, Indiana Jones, WandaVision, even Call of Duty—they have final say on the script! If they don’t like the way the US Military is portrayed, your movie is simply not allowed to come out. None of this is a secret, people seem to be content living in blissful ignorance.
This subplot, I think, is where Nguyen’s rage burns most fervently. He grew up an American, watched Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and more blatant pro-America propaganda such as Rambo, saw the racist and misrepresentative portrayal of his people, and internalized this anger. “In seeing [the movies], it was clear that the Vietnamese were not seen, they were seen through.”
The Auteur ignores the narrator’s guidance at every turn, and all the narrator manages to achieve in the movie is double-pay ($2 per day instead of $1!) for the less-desirable roles of Viet Cong, and the addition of three speaking roles for Vietnamese—who end up being played by other Southeast Asians rather than actual Vietnamese.
Before shooting the grand finale, the Auteur strokes his ego to the crew, saying that “Long after this war is forgotten, when its existence is a paragraph in a schoolbook students won’t even bother to read, and everyone who survived it is dead, their bodies dust, their memories atoms, their emotions no longer in motion, this work of art will still shine so brightly it will not just be about the war but it will be the war. (p. 178)”
Herein lies the dangerous truth about history. While the Auteur’s claim is objectively absurd, is he wrong? Apocalypse Now is hailed as a classic, the gold standard in war movies. It is anti-war, yes, but how many of us have seen or read the Vietnamese perspective on the war? I admit, until recently, I had not. This is why books like The Sympathizer are so important. “I had no doubt that in the Auteur’s egomaniacal imagination he meant that his work of art, now, was more important than the three or for or six million dead, who composed the real meaning of the war. They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented. (p. 179)”
Part 3: Independence & Freedom
This next portion will spoil the last act of the book, so if you want to avoid that, jump to part 4
The Narrator and Bon are captured on a South Vietnamese scouting mission, thanks to the Narrator’s tipping off of the communists. And here is where the story gets really interesting. I will do my best to relay the complexity of Nguyen’s message, but really, you should read the book, because the way he pulls everything together is miraculous.
We learn that the framing of the Narrator’s “confession”, which has told the entire story to this point, is actually taking place within a North Vietnamese “re-education camp”. We also learn that the Commandant who is reviewing the Narrator’s confession is not pleased with it. The Narrator has written countless versions over the course of one year in solitary confinement, and it’s clear that the Communists see him as a lost cause, a mind infected by capitalist ideals and too much time in America. The Commandant tells him, “you are addicted to the social evils of alcohol, prostitution, and yellow music.”
“Aren’t we all comrades? I asked the commandant at an earlier session. Yes, he said, but not all comrades have the same level of ideological consciousness.”
Luckily, the Narrator has one man within the camp sympathetic to his position as a sleeper agent that has fallen too deep into Western culture. He is a mysterious “faceless man”, flesh burned red and mottled with scars, later revealed to be from a Napalm attack. The prisoners, and even their guards, fear him.
The Narrator finally meets the commissar in his quarters, notices the famous Ho Chi Minh quote, “Nothing is more precious than independence and freedom.” And upon seeing the commissar’s horrific face, “eyes bulging from withered sockets, nostrils reduced to holes without a nose, the hairless, earless skull one massive keloid scar, leaving the head to resemble one of those dried, decapitated trophies swung on a string by an ebullient headhunter,” the Narrator recognizes him. It’s his best friend, his protector, his handler, his comrade, Man.
Guards shove him onto a mattress and tie him down, deprive his sense with a blindfold and ear plugs, but do not let him sleep. The narrator’s subsequent torture is brutal—not physically, but psychologically—and it is made more brutal by the fact that it is his blood brother inflicting the pain.
But Man explains his side of the story; really, truly, he is powerless to free the Narrator. It’s only because of Man that the Narrator and Bon are not dead already. “You frighten [the commandant]. You are nothing but a shadow standing at the mouth of his cave, some strange creature that sees things from two sides. People like you must be purged because you bear the contamination that can destroy the revolution’s purity.”
The Narrator must convince the commandant, as well as the commissars above Man, that the virus of Western sympathy has been eradicated, to have any hope of being released. And so Man must torture him, blast his retinas with bright light, shock him electrically to keep him awake, all in hopes that he will realize what he has forgotten.
As Man continues his torture, begging an answer to the question, “what is more important than independence and freedom?” Eventually, after a long, visceral session of torture, the Narrator realizes the answer to the question: Nothing! Nothing was the answer. “While nothing is more precious than independence and freedom, nothing is also more precious than independence and freedom! These two slogans are almost the same, but not quite. The first inspiring slogan was Ho Chi Minh’s empty suit which he no longer wore. How could he? He was dead. The second slogan was a tricky joke. It was Uncle Ho’s empty suit turned inside out, a sartorial sensation that only a man of two minds, or a man with no face, dared to wear.”
Man is a tragic character, which the narrator fully understands. “…while he was setting me free, he himself could never be free, unable or unwilling to leave this camp except through death, which at least would be a relief from his living death.” He commits evil deeds for the same reason many Nazi SS officers or Christian Crusaders or ISIS terrorists commit evil deeds—because they are so deeply bought into their ideologies that they are convinced that any violence is purely essential to advance the cause. Either that, or the manipulative or terrorizing systems of which they are propping up feel inescapable, and their only option, in their eyes, is to conform to what is expected of them.
It's never explicitly revealed where Man falls in this spectrum. The Narrator speculates that there is madness in his eyes, and certainly his unimaginable trauma of having his flesh melted by napalm contributes to his actions, but ultimately, it does not matter how much of his actions were through his own volition vs. peer pressure. The fact is, the revolutionary ideology that states “Nothing is more precious than independence and freedom,” that any faction who gets in the way of must be stamped out, leaves no room for individual thought. Your options are to conform or to be subject to reeducation or death at speaking your thoughts.
Part 4 – Question Everything
“What do those who struggle against power do when they seize power? What does the revolutionary do when the revolution triumphs? Why do those who call for independence and freedom take away the independence and freedom of others? And is it sane or insane to believe, as so many around us apparently do, in nothing? We can only answer these questions for ourselves.”
These are the questions our Narrator leaves us with in the last couple pages of The Sympathizer. Were you expecting a neatly-wrapped ending? Too bad, life doesn’t have many of those. [John Mulaney - Brush your teeth, now boom! OJ. That’s life.]
I want to come back to the idea of “ideology” that I mentioned in part 1. Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, a pioneer of this way of thinking of ideology, defines ideology as “the experience we have of our lives from within, the story we tell ourselves about ourselves in order to account for what we are doing.” Ideologies are dangerous, because they eliminate our need to think critically about our actions and beliefs, but they are also unavoidable.
Nguyen presents and dismantles several popular ideologies throughout The Sympathizer: French Colonialism, North Vietnamese Communism, Western Liberalism, Catholicism, US Exceptionalism (or “Disneyland ideology” as he calls it), South Vietnamese nationalistic democracy, consumerism. He points out the hypocrisies in all these ideologies. The fact of the matter is, avoiding hypocrisy in your thinking is nearly impossible. The best option, really, is to be aware of your hypocrisy.
Okay, but if you’re watching and saying, hey, I don’t buy into in all this global capitalist bullshit. I live my life authentically, I reject capitalism completely. Well, by doing this, you are turning to another ideology—anticapitalism. This is where this idea ties back into The Sympathizer. Because, yes, in theory, it is not so bad to be an anticapitalist. In fact, I would call myself one. But you know who else was anticapitalist? Joseph Stalin. Ho Chi Minh. Kim Jong-Un. All the North Vietnamese comrades who tortured and killed for the sake of the revolution. If you buy too deeply into anticapitalism without critical thought, you’ll end up like Man, licked by the napalm of conformity.
The commandant in The Sympathizer replies to the narrator when he says he’s anti-American. “The anti-American includes the American. Don’t you see that the Americans need the anti-American? While it is better to be loved than hated, it is also far better to be hated than ignored. To be anti-American only makes you a reactionary. (p. 319)” This statement holds true for anti-capitalism as well
Zizek goes a step further and says that even those people who think they see the world through eyes unclouded by ideology, who take off the ideological glasses that distort our vision, even they are prone to ideology. To see the world’s truth, you must put on the ideological glasses.
The only way to see that we are being manipulated and propagandized is to recognize the US Army’s fancy weapons and uniforms in the films we see, and understand that means they signed off on this portrayal of them. The only way to see that we are being manipulated to consume through clever design and marketing is to recognize the subliminal messaging and blatant brand placement in the media we consume. The only way to understand how politicians play off our emotions and conditioning to view the other side of the aisle as the enemy is to learn to recognize the tricks they use.
So, none of this is to say you can’t have an ideology. Ideology is unavoidable, anyways. But you have a responsibility to be aware of the hypocrisies and dangers in the beliefs you choose to follow.
“In such times of urgency when we know we have to act, but don’t know how to act, thinking is needed. Maybe we should turn around a little bit. In our new century, we should say that maybe we tried all too fast to change the world. The time has come to step back to interpret it.”
— Slavoj Zizek
Thinking for yourself is hard. It takes brainpower and willpower, and it’s undoubtedly easier to fall back on an ideology that gives you an easy answer for everything. Even in this video essay, I’m pulling heavily from Zizek and Nguyen to illustrate a point; you could say I am using them to think for me. And by the way, this choice is not meant to imply that Nguyen would agree with everything Zizek says; I think, in fact, they would disagree strongly on many ideas. But the central idea in The Sympathizer, I believe, aligns nicely with Zizek’s idea that we live in a world of ideology, where you almost have to pick an ideology to ally yourself with.
So, in true Viet Thanh Nguyen and Slavoj Zizek fashion, I will end this video with a few questions to think about. why do you believe what you believe? Which ideological beliefs do you hold, and what contradictions are inherent in these beliefs? What social structures and norms have shaped your identity?