> In the "real world", it's better to disappear a few ten thousand non-US citizens than it is to have a visible competing hegemony. The only countries to surviv

> In the "real world", it's better to disappear a few ten thousand non-US citizens than it is to have a visible competing hegemony. The only countries to survive that pressure (China, DPRK) have only done so because of nuclear armaments which the US (the only country to nuke a city, let alone two) opposes. From what I've heard about China, it's not all roses there either. It's still better to disappear several thousand non-china citizens (or even some most prominent china citizens) than to admit non-ideality of rulers. It also meshes exactly with real-life communist-led acts I've heard from my parents (I'm several years too young to remember that). Yeah, some people think they had better living then than now and they are missing the times when everything was given to them (but they are not missing the times which came after, where you didn't have anything because the system ran out of "others' people money to give out"). The worst thing is - my country slowly descends back to that state of living, with wide handouts, but money is already starting to run out. They think they still live under capitalism, but it's only in name.