True. No one is suggesting here that the US is 100% bad. South Korea is an example of a place where things worked out pretty well due in large part to US intervention, just like WWII (though there's an argument to be made that the US got involved much later than it should have). But... is that it? How does that balance out Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan (80s and today), Iraq, Kuwait, etc.? On the whole, I believe US interventionism has been a net negative on societies we've interfered with.

True, and as upsetting as it is for Americans to hear this, chances are Europe would be at least as pluralistic and free as it is today had either of those happened.

In the counterfactual where the Soviets conquered Europe, I could easily see the USSR surviving to today... No liberal democracies on their borders to compare with, no need for a huge military on the western border, and increased resources would go a long way.

It’d still crumble under its own weight due to corruption and lack of mid-level society bonding factors like corporations, unions, gatherings, etc. China managed to navigate this mess somewhat successfully until it was technically possible to implement social engineering on a scale previously unheard of with their great firewall and social score. Compute power enables their selective repression system.

What makes you think the USSR would have been more successful had it been stretched even more thinly, across a much larger land area and population, where the vast majority of those people would hate their occupation overlords?