You run into the slight problem that they are, allegedly, liberating forces, not occupying forces, and at Yalta they agreed not to occupy, rather to reestablish them as states with free and fair elections, which you seem to be having difficulty understanding that they didn't. Crushing opposition to make it practically a one party state is not having a free and fair election, especially when you then back a coup to get rid of the parties that disagree with you.
Further, most of Eastern Europe where the Soviets threw their backing behind the communist and socialist parties to get them into power and instill a puppet government weren't even part of the Third Reich, and when they were "liberated" were almost certainly done so purely to occupy the areas.
Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, in fact most of South Eastern Europe were not touched until late 1944 early 1945 when the heavy lines were moving in miles per hour, not per day, the darkest bit of the map above, swept from one side almost all the way to the other in a few months after the lighter tone took 3 years. The explicit strategy of both forces in the final months was not a race to Berlin, but a race to liberate/occupy as much of central Europe and Germany as possible, the Stalin to extend his sphere of influence, the Western Allies to minimise that expansion, the final six months or so of the European campaign was all about which political position won more of Europe.
I guess it's not surprise you're ,moving the goalposts, trying to justify actions that directly lead to the cold war by saying "well, the other people then did it during the cold war"
Are these inevitable revolutions the ones that never happened, per chance?
You probably know Bernstein better as one Leon Trotsky.
Dear God, you've stooped to a new level of looking stupid now, I'm guessing NASA never landed on the Moon either, I mean that inferior American equipment could clearly not manage it!
The US tested Tellar-Ulam (what basically everybody uses) fussion bomb in May '51 225kt, not meant to be big, meant to prove it works, went full scale, then Cryogenically cooled full scale the following November up at 10.4Mt, then dry design in March '54 with 15Mt and the biggest yeild of any tested US design (although they did ponder 250-500Mt devices to place off the West Coast as a defence against a naval assault).
Soviets on the other hand detonated their first fusion device in 1953, although I don't think it's fusion yeild was anywhere near high enough to be truly considered a fusion device, eventually in 1955 they used the same design as the Americans and managed 1.6Mt, and then in '61 you got the clearest demonstration of how powerful staged devices can be with Tsar Bomba.
The UK joined the club in 1957, before entering into the still standing sharing agreement with the US in 1958. Trivia on the side, we hold the record for the largest fission detonation ever, which everybody else thought was a fusion device.
Yeah, Russia was well behind in development, but went for higher yields that their western enemies (still do).
As for SDI, not unique to the US, the USSR tried to build anti ballistic missile system, but simply could not afford it, you can actually see parts of the never completed Moscow installations to this day, and more primitive systems had been in development by both sides since the 50s, there was a reason the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was a thing, limiting areas that could be covered by anti-ballistic missiles two only two, later cut down to 1, each with no more than 100 launchers and missiles. the USSR chose Moscow, which implies that they had launch systems very close to Moscow, which really shows the Soviet disregard for their own citizens, the US chose a facility in North Dakota (makes sense given they can't get much closer to Western Russia than there, at least without counting Alaska) where the system was being built anyway. The Americans finished the project, the Russians ran out of money, although the US only operated it for a single year.
You should have learnt not to bother trying to argue Nuclear when the Libs suggested it would be a good idea to go back to planes and bombs rather than SSBNs