Tell me sincerely, because I want to get into the mind of someone like you, do you really believe that wikipedia is a trustworthy source on literally anything? Like deep down, when you go fetch a wikipedia link, do you really think “yeah I’ll just link wikipedia then I won’t have to make a point myself”?
all of these sources come from western analysts during the cold war, all of whom belonged to western think tanks designed to propagate misinformation against communism.
Your sources are inflated by people long dead and their relatives pump this same shit for you to consume. Gulags existed, so does labor camps in america, america also regularly massacred students and workers. And caused a silent famine to happen in the midwest, yet you scream communism to drown out any forms of alternative information you feel uncomfortable about.
Tell me sincerely, because I want to get into the mind of someone like you, do you really believe that wikipedia is a trustworthy source on literally anything? Like deep down, when you go fetch a wikipedia link, do you really think “yeah I’ll just link wikipedia then I won’t have to make a point myself”?
Wikipedia is trustworthy enough for famous historical events, you won’t find write in it that the gulags weren’t real
all of these sources come from western analysts during the cold war, all of whom belonged to western think tanks designed to propagate misinformation against communism.
Your sources are inflated by people long dead and their relatives pump this same shit for you to consume. Gulags existed, so does labor camps in america, america also regularly massacred students and workers. And caused a silent famine to happen in the midwest, yet you scream communism to drown out any forms of alternative information you feel uncomfortable about.
It is in fact precisely such highly political historical topics that wikipedia is most untrustworthy about.
What makes it trustworthy on historical events?