Comments by "Louis Giokas" (@louisgiokas2206) on "American Revolution Like Ukrainian Struggle For Independence" video.

What was the government of France like at that time? They did it for geopolitical reasons, not out of some real sympathy with the colonists' goals of freedom. In fact, the French had their revolution six years later which overthrew the government that supported the Americans.
3
Liberty and justice for all. That is a fine ideal and one I share. The thing you leave out is that those countries that helped the US were generally monarchies where people had fewer rights that the people of England or the American colonies. On the other hand, how much blood and treasure (other's, not yours by the way) are you willing to spend to make that true worldwide? According to your rhetoric in this video that is what is required. You really need to brush up on your history. Given your argument then how do you explain why the US was totally absent in the revolutions in Europe in 1848. The US was pacificist prior to WWI and WWII. How do you explain that? The American people only responded when attacked directly. The US had a policy, the Monroe Doctrine which was specifically aimed at keeping the western hemisphere free from European wars. The US was pulling back after the Cold War from foreign entanglements. That was the will of the American electorate. Democracy, remember. Kuwait was driven by the issue of energy supply security for the US and its allies, not the desire for the freedom of the Kuwaiti people. The GWT was a detour. It was taken because, again, the US was attacked directly. So, Mark, if you are going to use history (obviously not your area of expertise) and you want to sway people you need to use a little (a lot?) more nuance. To say the Ukrainians in the 21st century are the same as the British colonists in the Americas in the 18th century is a stretch. That is both wrong and you will not sway people. You will, in fact, for those that look more deeply into it, raise doubts.
1
@rafflesmaos Well, you miss the point, for one thing. Do you really want to assign guilt to the US for those wars? Are you really saying that the US caused all that death and destruction? Did you not get what I said about the US electorate not wanting to get involved? Do you have any idea of what democracy means and how it works? Do you understand sovereignty? If you want to assign guilt for WWII, for example, it would be to the UK and especially France. They could have gone into Germany at the very beginning and ended Hitler. Don't forget that they declared war on Germany for their invasion of Poland. At that time, they probably had superior forces. Why don't you talk about that? You would do better to get a good understanding of history rather than just having a knee-jerk anti-American reaction.
1
@rafflesmaos Your first statement is just plain silly. You clearly haven't read your history. The French tanks at the beginning of the war were considered superior to the German tanks. The problem France had was that they were poorly deployed. de Gaulle had a lot to say about that before and during the war. The Germans would have had a two-front war on their hands. As it was, they were allowed to take care of Poland and then concentrate their forces on the west because of the treaty with the Soviets. Not only that, but they were given a lot of time to prepare (remember the sitzkrieg?). What were the UK and France expecting? Some sort of negotiation?
1
@rafflesmaos I never said that the UK did not deploy its army. What was the British expeditionary force that had to be rescued at Dunkirk? Do they just get there a couple of weeks before. France had their forces fully mobilized fairy quickly. The attacked into Saarland to weak German opposition then withdrew. They retired to their barracks. You might want to quit while you are ahead. At this point you are just making stuff up.
1
@rafflesmaos The US by this time had not been attacked. It had no alliance with either France or the UK. Are you saying that it had an obligation to attack in that case? You are saying that the US has an obligation to get involved in all wars, anywhere. That is one of the more perverted things I have ever heard. It is also not something that would be supported by Americans on any part of the political spectrum. France had declared war, went in and then withdrew voluntarily, all without getting any concessions from Germany. So, why did they declare war then? You don't declare war and then not forcefully attack when you can.
1
@rafflesmaos You are just making stuff up at this point. The Saarland incursion came on September 7 while Germany was still fully engaged in Poland. France did have very good forces, and if they had done a few things differently things could have turned out differently. For one thing, they declined to extend the Maginot Line all along their eastern border. They did not want to upset the other countries, such as Belgium, for example. Considering what had happened in WWI, this was always seen as a bad move. It was never a certainty that the US would have been drawn directly into WWII. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise. It was not necessary for Japan and was based on a scenario that turned out to be incorrect. They knew full well that they had to fully knock out the US Navy in the first blow and didn't. Even Yamamoto had his reservations about the whole enterprise. If Hitler had not declared war on the US, then the US would have continued supplying the British and then gotten on with the attack on Japan. Even in the first months of the war with Germany there were plenty of people that wanted to concentrate on Japan. To say that the US "should have" and that isolationism does not deter totalitarian regimes just shows ignorance of history. History is not about what would of should have happened. It is the study of what did happen. So, to say the people of the time should have done something based on what happened later disregards what was really happening at the time.
1
@rafflesmaos What does the Munich Agreement have to do with the US and its policies? Who said it was a fantastic proposal? You are just being stupid now. And I wouldn't be throwing around the imperialist label if I was a European. At the time of WWII, the UK and France still had large empires. In fact, let's talk about those empires. One of the reasons for the American people not wanting to support the Brits and French prior to WWI and WWII is that what that such support would allow them to maintain their empires. In fact, after WWII the US pressured the UK to dissolve its empire. Remember the Suez Crisis. As for what I said about what France did before the war, that was contemporary thought, not speculation. People at the time pointed that out, prior to the war. It was a part of the conversation at the time. In other words, history.
1