So, three authoritarians, and only two get to survive.
Shoot the lock to escape the room, and save the other bullet for whoever locked you up in there.
Same result, but the liberal asks Israel who should have the gun.
Shoot the fascist twice
That’s what I would do lmao. Fuck that guy
Throw the gun away and beat thw shit out of the fascist with the other two would be my choice. That hurts more than a gunshot.
beat thw shit out of the fascist with the other
You mean ask them for help, or use them as oversized clubs?
If they wanna be oversized clubs im down for that but originally i meant ask fof help
depends where the entry wound is and if there is an exit
the lib gives the gun to the fascist the fascist shoots the lib in the back of the head twice, the fasicst then gaslights the marxist into believing the lib committed self harm
A Marxist is stuck in a room with a liberal, a fascist, and an anarchist. The Marxist has one gun and two bullets. What does the Marxist do? Shoot the liberal and the anarchist.
(Based off actual historical events.)
Historically, the Marxists were the ones that stopped the Nazis. 80% of combat in WWII was fought on the Eastern Front. Meanwhile, the liberals in Germany had linked hands with the Nazis to exterminate the Marxists early on in the Nazi rise to power. Additionally, the Soviets were the only ones materially backing the Anarchists in Spain.
The Soviet Union did more to stop the fascists than anyone else, and 27 million people in the Soviet Union were killed in the fight.
Yeah, but that’s after they made an alliance with Nazi Germany. An alliance Germany broke, not the USSR.
The Telegraph, 2008: Stalin ‘planned to send a million troops to stop Hitler if Britain and France agreed pact’ | Stalin was ‘prepared to move more than a million Soviet troops to the German border to deter Hitler’s aggression just before the Second World War’
Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.
Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history, preventing Hitler’s pact with Stalin which gave him free rein to go to war with Germany’s other neighbours.
The offer of a military force to help contain Hitler was made by a senior Soviet military delegation at a Kremlin meeting with senior British and French officers, two weeks before war broke out in 1939.
The new documents, copies of which have been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, show the vast numbers of infantry, artillery and airborne forces which Stalin’s generals said could be dispatched, if Polish objections to the Red Army crossing its territory could first be overcome.
But the British and French side - briefed by their governments to talk, but not authorised to commit to binding deals - did not respond to the Soviet offer, made on August 15, 1939. Instead, Stalin turned to Germany, signing the notorious non-aggression treaty with Hitler barely a week later.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, named after the foreign secretaries of the two countries, came on August 23 - just a week before Nazi Germany attacked Poland, thereby sparking the outbreak of the war. But it would never have happened if Stalin’s offer of a western alliance had been accepted, according to retired Russian foreign intelligence service Major General Lev Sotskov, who sorted the 700 pages of declassified documents.
“This was the final chance to slay the wolf, even after [British Conservative prime minister Neville] Chamberlain and the French had given up Czechoslovakia to German aggression the previous year in the Munich Agreement,” said Gen Sotskov, 75.
The Soviet offer - made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov - would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany’s borders in the event of war in the west, declassified minutes of the meeting show.
But Admiral Sir Reginald Drax, who lead the British delegation, told his Soviet counterparts that he authorised only to talk, not to make deals.
“Had the British, French and their European ally Poland, taken this offer seriously then together we could have put some 300 or more divisions into the field on two fronts against Germany - double the number Hitler had at the time,” said Gen Sotskov, who joined the Soviet intelligence service in 1956. “This was a chance to save the world or at least stop the wolf in its tracks.”
A non-aggression pact is not so much of an alliance. Nazis are the ones who broke it anyway. US armed/financed German military-industrial complex.
It was not just a pact of non aggression. They attacked Poland together, and shared its territory. It was an alliance.
And the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact included (in secret) an agreement dividing Europe up into Nazi and Soviet halves preemptively.
The USSR first sought an alliance with Britain and France which was rejected, so they signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. Britain and France also signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, betraying one of their allies (Czechoslovakia) in exchange.
Should we take the fact that the US and USSR fought on the same side in WWII to say that they were always close friends and ideologically aligned, completely ignoring everything else? Because if anything that would be more reasonable to assert, because it never escalated to a hot war between the two.
It wasn’t just a pact of non-aggression. They divided Poland between themselves! France and Britain abandoned Czechoslovakia to avoid a war, USSR made an alliance with Nazi Germany to begin one.
And USSR and the US were on the same side because they were attacked by allied countries (Germany and Japan), they didn’t chose one another. Stop your historical revisionism.
I won’t defend all of the USSR’s actions, but it’s absurd to suggest they were motivated by any sort of ideological alignment with the Nazis as opposed to self-interest and circumstance, in the same way that the US and USSR were motivated by a common interest rather than ideological alignment.
At basically every other moment in history, all across the globe, Marxists and fascists have been at each other’s throats.
Nothing I’ve said is in the least bit “historical revisionism.”
Still, the USSR considered that an alliance with Nazi Germany was ideologically acceptable, even if they were not aligned. Because the only true ideology of USSR was to maintain its leaders in power, Marxism was just a facade. And that’s will always ultimately the case with authoritarian governments.
Of course self-preservation was a priority for the USSR, as it is with any nation. Failure to achieve self-preservation would have meant being ruled by the Nazis.
Not sure how that in any way indicates that “Marxism was a facade.”
The Soviet Union was not entitled to an alliance with partners they were at war with only a decade prior. Britain and France were at war with the entity that would become the Soviet Union until 1922, There was no reason to Trust an alliance from a state that was ideologically opposed to them and wanted to destroy their way of life.
But the Victim complex from the Russians is a venerable beast, it was as relevant in 1925 as it was in 2025.
I’m not sure how it’s relevant whether or not the Soviets were “entitled” to an alliance. What matters is the fact that they attempted to negotiate one there first.
I can ask for a cup of sugar from the neighbor who I wrecked the car of last month. that neighbor is still within his reasonable rights to tell me to fuck off
Again, not relevant. The point is not how Britain and France responded, the point is that the Soviets chose to go to them first.
Which the Red Army made up for by murdering untold thousands of German citizens on the way to Berlin. Let’s not pretend the Soviets weren’t huge pieces of shit, the only reason they didn’t start WW2 was because they were too busy shitting in buckets and starving to death.
The only people you idiot .ml users are fooling is yourselves, so I don’t know why you bother with this revisionist bullshit.
revisionist bullshit.
Projection, as always.
The Soviet Union. Or more accuratley, RUSSIA was one of the two aggressors that Started the second world war.
Furthermore, they were not an ally, but a co-belligerent. Why else did the free world go from a period of direct confrontation and war in the 20s, to Cold war in the 30s. to temporary truce for 4 years from 1941 to 1945. right back to Cold war with Moscow from 1945 till 1991? (and then another temporary truce from 1991 until about 2008) right back to more or less being de facto at war with each other again since 2014
And you can’t pin tens of millions of your own people, with Purges, Pogroms, Mentally handicapped suicidal orders. And general paranoid hysterical incompetnece. and blame those on the germans.
especially when large percentages of those people were colonized nations that wanted nothing to do with the Bolshevik Russian Imperial rule (Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles, Balts etc and were just used like buffers and meat shields)
to temporary truce for 4 years from 1941 to 1945.
Do nations typically put aside differences to make temporary truces with co-belligerents of the nations they’re at war with?
I dont know. you tell me. Outside of the thunderdome in the middle east. whens the last time there was a major conflict with dozens of nations and more than two major ideoligies at play.
If you’re asking in good faith. World War II’s situation was largely unprecedented.
Unlike WWI Where Imperial Russia and France were allied. Soviet Russia was not allied with France, Britain, or western Europe.The point is that the US put aside ideological differences because the USSR was fighting against the Nazis, they were not “co-belligerents.”
for four years. a temporary matter. they went right back to being in a hostile competition for spheres of influence a few weeks or months after V-E day however.
Well, that’s twice as long as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact lasted before the Nazis and Communists went right back to killing each other, not just in a “hostile competition” but in a large scale, total war that left tens of millions of people dead.
If anyone disagrees:
Kronstadt
Spanish Civil War
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
The War in Ukraine
Etc.
- 1932 Germany
- Two months ago, thanks guys, Palestine and immigration policy are saved now
The War in Ukraine
I’m confused.
Did you forget how all the MLs were rooting for Putin and performing apologetics about how Russia had “national trauma from its interactions with the west”? (actual quote, btw.) They pointed out how there were some factions in the military that were antisemitic and ignored the openly fascist policies of the Kremlin.
JFC… Russia needs to neutralize Ukraine for self defense from demonic NATO intentions to diminish it. Disinformation blaming Russia just allows your rulers and oligarchs corruption profits while your own countries are diminished instead. Pretending that all of your evil benefits Ukrainian people is by far the worst outcome of your hate.
The Spanish Civil War is actually slightly inaccurate. The Communist Party were sided with the Liberal Republicans instead of the revolutionaries - like the anarchists, and other socialists - and later prosecuted those revolutionaries and accused them of being fascists while a lot of them were still in the frontlines fighting actual fascists. The Communist Party were just serving the interests of the USSR, which at that point wanted a liberal government in Spain (due to their relation to France, if I recall correctly) and not a workers’ revolution.
This is why campism is the biggest pitfall on the left. It’s tempting to let others do your thinking for you, but this is where it leads.
Spanish Civil War
What can drag Google to learn more about tankies fucking up Catalonia?
The Marxist was the only one who gave the anarchist guns, tanks, and planes. But no, they’re surely a bigger threat than the liberal and fascist.
Surely giving the gun to the fascist is a better decision. They’ll just shoot themselves in the foot… Right?
They eventually do. Fascism encourages corruption and incompetence, social division and the fragmentation of non-governmental movements, local dissidents and autonomies. Mussolini was so incompetent that not only was Italy eventually invaded by the Allies and lost its sovereignty to the German Reich, but Benito himself was imprisoned, despite his escape he didn’t make it to Switzerland and was hanged by Communist partisans. Hitler, on the other hand, also encouraged corruption and division within his own structures to prevent people from allying against him or creating opposition. Hitler himself was an incompetent idiot who interfered in the work of his generals. To the end, Adolf believed he could win the war, and when he realised the shit he had created, he shot himself. Fascists aren’t smart or competent enough, they often rely heavily on people who can do things and who are bribed by the fascists to work with them. Hitler often used Göring’s upper class position and connections with prominent aristocrats to get his ideas through, as Hitler himself was just a peasant born in a village with little education and was even homeless for a time. Hitler relied heavily on people more competent than him in important positions to get what he wanted, because he could do shit on his own.
shoot himself in the foot and then the face?
This one, at least as applies to liberals in government in the USA, is a lot more accurate.
Oh and also they need some money for medical bills now. They’ll be sure to send you some texts about it.
I’d probably work towards getting out of the room tbh
While the conservative that planned this insane and illegal real life thought experiment jerked off into a dirty sock while wearing a trump mask and somehow, despite not even touching the gun, still shot themselves in the foot.
A leftist is stuck in a room with another leftist and a fascist.
The leftist has one gun and two bullets, and they must be used.
What does the leftist do?
Shoot the other leftist twice.
… then claim the other leftist making an edgy joke at the age of 14 is a proof they were the real fascist.
I mean it says the bullets must be used. You could just shoot the wall
I use my two bullets to shoot the concept of this political thought experimentp. Let me out now puzzle master, we had a deal you can’t keep
Makes it look like a suicide
Based off of current goings-on, this is factual. Constant internal battles about who’s the true leftist while ignoring the real enemy
The only ones ignoring the real enemy are the liberals, actually helping them to fight the leftists.
tHe LiBz!!
Nope
Damn that was fast! USA is not yet full fascist that liberals are already rewriting history!
How are liberals rewriting history if i may ask?
By pretending that liberals didn’t push the fascists to power. And instead blaming the left, as always. The only enemy of liberals are the leftists. It always has been, and it’ll always be apparently.
This is a myopic analysis of why the fascists are in power. The left as a whole is responsible for pushing the fascists to power because of their inability to settle on a common agenda. Some leftists are more concerned with social justice, some with the worries of the working class and some with capitalism entirely.
This blaming of one particular ideological group for why the right were able to usurp power is part of the problem. Looking for who to blame instead of looking for a solution that all leftists can agree on.
Note: When i refer to the left, I’m talking about liberals, progressives, social democrats and the far left ideologies.
Where do you vote, incidentally? Besides Lemmy.
Not the US, clearly.
Of course they started with 6 bullets but the liberal and the fascist liked to pass the gun around and take pot shots at the marxist every so often so the marxist couldn’t ever influence or overpower them. This is just the moment the liberal realized there were only two bullets left.
I died laughing in class😂
PoliSci 401?
Marx 315
I choose to shoot OP in the forehead and right eyeball.
Is it a US liberal, or a “rest of the world” liberal (which typically means the opposite)?
The lib was both the Marxist and the anarchist
Fascist shoots the liberal and the anarchist
Historically speaking, the Nazis literally first built the camps to put Marxists in.
ah yes, the holocaust was checks notes started to persecute commies
mods, can we get a ban for him being a right-wing nutjob?
Never thought I’d find myself quoting Marxist apologia, but read Blackshirts and Reds😪
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
The Holocaust started with elimination of political opponents, namely the communists.
Martin Niemoller
Why do you think the Nazis came to power originally? They were effective killers of Communists in a Germany that was legitimately on the cusp of Communist revolution. Jewish peoples were of course among the highest in gross quantity of victims, and the main focus, but they also used that rhetoric to attack “judeo-bolshevism.” The poem goes “first they came for the Communists,” because the Communists were the most active anti-fascists and the largest threat to the Nazis.
Nazi Germany persecuted a wide variety of people. While the Holocaust specifically refers to the atrocities committed against the Jews, there were up to 5 million more Slavs, Roma, LGBT, disabled, communists, and political disadents of any kind who were killed.
Particularly leading up to the Nazis sizing power, much of their initial rhetoric was absolutely targeted at Jews, but much of their initial action was targeted at communists, since they were political rivals.
The concentration camp system arose in the following months due to the desire to suppress tens of thousands of Nazi opponents in Germany. The Reichstag fire in February 1933 was the pretext for mass arrests; the Reichstag Fire Decree eliminated the right to personal freedom enshrined in the Weimar Constitution.
Eighty percent of prisoners were Communists and ten percent Social Democrats; the remaining ten percent were affiliated with a different party, were trade union activists, or had no connection to a political party.
You heard it here first, folks. The real victims were the tankies.
Oh come on. You know that’s not the argument they made…
Yes?? Jesus Christ, learn history, this is indisputable.
Which history? I’m actually curious, I need to know what Kremlin approved literature I should be reading to get the “real” history.
I already linked you Wikipedia, but I guess that’s controlled by the Kremlin. How about the Holocaust Encyclopedia, is that controlled by the Kremlin too?
As soon as the Nazis rose to power, they began targeting communists, both inside and outside Germany. In 1933, the first concentration camp opened at Dachau to hold political prisoners. The first prisoners were all communists.
You are objectively wrong about this and if you ask literally any historian, regardless of their political views, they will tell you so. I can hunt down more sources for you if you like, but I have a feeling you’ve dug in your heels enough that it literally doesn’t matter who or what I cite.
Is Wikipedia “Kremlin approved literature”?
The first camps were established in March 1933 immediately after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. Following the 1934 purge of the SA, the concentration camps were run exclusively by the SS via the Concentration Camps Inspectorate and later the SS Main Economic and Administrative Office. Initially, most prisoners were members of the Communist Party of Germany, but as time went on different groups were arrested, including “habitual criminals”, “asocials”, and Jews.
