What you stated is your view of Russians as "the Other." People are everywhere the same, and while the way people react to a complete totalitarian takeover of society is a very interest subject, your view of what happens in such a society is very shallow and a little sad. I pray you will have never have to live in such a society yourself to experience what happens first hand.
You can try to read between Bulgakov's lines to understand what people who can put two and two together might have thought at the time. And he was just the one who had the courage to write, most wrote nothing.
[ edit: I did not downvote. ]
What you stated is your view of Russians as "the Other."
Huh? Where did you get that from?
People are everywhere the same
Yes and no. Biologically they are very similar on average. Culturally they end up very different. Hopefully you are not arguing with this empirical fact.
while the way people react to a complete totalitarian takeover of society is a very interest subject
Quite so. I suspect that having grown up in a society grown from an absolute monarchy would make another takeover easier, but I do not have any research handy to back it...
This month's media thread includes a short article on some people's idea to have Ayn Rand frozen, which ultimately didn't happen. My first reaction was a shudder. I thought, I definitely wouldn't want Ayn Rand preserved forever. My second thought was, What right do I have to say who can and who can't get frozen?
Whatever your thoughts on Ayn Rand, I think this can spark an interesting conversation: What, if anything, should humankind do about people who are widely seen as harmful for the whole? For example, if the Castro dynasty in Cuba or the Kim dynasty in North Korea decide to freeze themselves to ensure they will continue oppressing their countries forever, should that be prevented? (And yes, my opinion of Ayn Rand is such that these examples came to mind.)