Comments by "" (@johnnotrealname8168) on "GDF" channel.

  1.  @lordadorable1140  Some of what you write is disingenuous. For example the British landowners initially tended to subsidise emigration, some through the Coffin ships to Canada, however later they did evictions. A few were decent people. The evictions had the effect of starving the people.
    17
  2.  @degeneration6493  Yeah, the Central Intelligence Agency has opened many of these records (For Iran as an example.).
    13
  3.  @americancommunist6076  Objectively no. Also if we are going to focus on America's treatment of other countries then why were East-Germans aiding Idi Amin Dada Oumee directly, let alone the soviets supporting him, that is already what 300,000? Why did the soviets support the khmer rouge into power (Before you write it, the Vietnamese directly aided the khmer rouge in taking over Cambodia. They could have just not moved in.)? What about the million dead in Afghanistan? Oh and this is leaving aside the what half a million dead in Ethiopia (All of these are middle of the road estimates too so you cannot accuse me of exaggerating.) and the countless dead as a result of Ethiopia using famine as a weapon for their absurd social experiments. All of these examples are from the '70s onwards and notably all are third-world countries. This video guy is so disingenuous when someone conveniently avoids what the u.s.s.r. was doing. Compared to what was done, the 80,000 (A high estimate by the way.) in Operation Condor (Which I happily condemn and oppose. A bunch of masonic @#£%&?!s.) and even Indonesia (Which I similarly oppose being a Catholic (East-Timor being a Catholic country.).) is a drop of water. They are all horrible though, Médecins Sans Frontières is correct. There is no right-wing nor left-wing terror. Just terror.
    11
  4. @sheeplikethedead  A commitment to freedom, democracy and the rule of law compared with tyranny? Even a one-to-one comparison works mate. An opposition to communism is enough for me though.
    7
  5. If you side with the soviets, why should you exist as a state? Granted that latter part that was pretty @~?£ed up (Mainly Argentina weirdly. An odd case too since they went to war with Britain which America supported, so did Chile.).
    6
  6.  @abderahmandj3845_muslim  It was trade, it was also given back to Panama. What is this a criticism of? Not all of them were radical islamists, there were plenty of moderate islamic forces there also the soviets invaded the country and murdered at least a couple hundred thousand civilians (Up to 1.5 million which would be 10% of the population.). Iraq should not have invaded Kuwait then. Well that was indeed horrible however the result is not the worst thing. Fair dos about ukraine but rather irrelevant to the Cold War I notice.
    5
  7.  @lordadorable1140  This is where you make another mistake. The Liberal government did the opposite for Ireland and made it an Irish problem whereupon the landlords instituted the Gregory Clause to increase evictions. The only party that cared was the Conservative Party who indeed did desire the maintenance of the Union. Although Dónall Ó Conaill himself was a decent human being his son sided with the landlords. Ó Conaill's fault was relying so much on the liberals because of the potential for repealing the Act of Union (1801).
    5
  8. Is this just a statement of the obvious? If the public actually needs to know this then they are woefully under-educated but I feel they would know about it given how much attention Vietnam is given. It was a bunch of proxy wars well done. Edit: It is justified to do certain otherwise illegal things when facing a threat like the soviets (For example the Germans do not let nazis in government.), not writing this justifies everything here of course.
    5
  9.  @ultrainstincthamza9766  The Americans did not do worse and mostly in reaction to.
    4
  10. It reminds me of tactical nuclear bombs whose range was equivalent to their blast radius.
    3
  11. There was no war in Western-Europe though.
    3
  12.  @kamarovcliffordsky3458  This comment is confusing.
    3
  13. @willt9721  All you are writing is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist and supported by the soviet union. I am not disputing this, I do dispute the fact that so many were communists, the North was a tyranny as well and the South was notoriously anti-communist. So state atheism and anti-religous Western Edit: "ideology" is okay? I am sure the religious record of North-Vietnam was excellent (If you could get a record of them.). I do not doubt the man was corrupt but I gave you a source to verify what I wrote about the buddhism matter. I am not denying the elections in the South were rigged, I am a Monarchist so what do you think I think of the Imperial referendum? Of course as a Catholic I am grateful some haven for the faith was maintained there. At least you acknowledge the corruption and repression in the North but that sort of goes to my point about how the South was actually better, again free-press and free-assembly (Relative to the North.). I think that was misguided but yes the Americans were opposed to authoritarianism, this is why they acquiesced to the end Edit3: "Edit2": "of" regimes they supported (South-Korea and the Philippines. In fact I do not think any communist country has truly democratised while many American allies have, Taiwan too.).
    3
  14.  @normalhuman666  I believe the Algerian War was fairly unique for the time in that the guerrillas took pains to not align either way so the Americans ended up pressuring the French. This is unlike other areas in Africa (To an extent, the Americans rarely supported Colonial powers. For example they opposed Portugal, Rhodesia, South-Africa and they were ambivalent to everywhere else apart from Libya (Supported Chad against Libya for example.).). Africa is complicated too as it had many non-aligned countries.
    3
  15.  @96books  The opposite were communists who were infinitely worse and also he is not a fascist. The communists wanted to force a way of life on the world that the world did not want.
    3
  16.  @ultrainstincthamza9766  I do not understand why my Afghanistan one was deleted but the soviet union invaded. They toppled the legitimate government of Afghanistan twice and then invaded. Try again.
    3
  17.  @pacevy3798  Oh, well it was supported of course by the Americans but it had a lot of internal things going on as well.
    3
  18. The U.S. has barely started a war, and mostly justified ones.
    3
  19. Look at the casualty rates. The Americans successfully defeated an insurgency due to better tactics, weapons and the sheer might of money. I cannot believe I have to point this out but Iraq today is a free, democratic and (Relatively) functioning country and the United States won the Iraq war. I am not a shill, Bush lied and the continuing cover-up of that is absurd but nonetheless despite the suffering of potentially millions Iraq today is in much better hands than the genocidal maniac who murdered Kurds like they were vermin and sent death-squads through the streets. That is the only reason I am willing to forgive Bush and the Neo-Conservatives, they fulfilled their pledge to free Iraq and it's people. Too bad they let Afghanistan burn.
    3
  20. Please explain this, maybe some recommendations too.
    2
  21. They did though. The soviets despised America because of their freedoms. They...they argued on this very issue.
    2
  22.  @OneInTheMosh  No, he is not. The communists did all that, in fact he even writes that it may be good to explain why the Americans did to oppose communism.
    2
  23.  @anthony_de_paz  They had more food than the communistic equivalent strangely enough.
    2
  24. Cambodia had one million dead and wait how did you get 300 million?
    2
  25.  @LeslieBurke8  It should also be borne in mind that the U.S. supported land-reform, unlike collectivisation that the communists just loved.
    2
  26. They were used along the most militarised border in history.
    2
  27. You mean hitler? You...what?
    2
  28. @atlashammercock9582  What circular logic? If you are a member of the vietcong, you are a guerilla fighter and thus not a civilian.
    2
  29.  @sentientnatalie  Ironic you mention that. I am not sure if it was used in Vietnam but arming civilians, to repel guerrillas, is a common tactic for Counter-Insurgencies (As evident in Iraq for example.). The reason is that the army cannot be everywhere at the same time so the fixed villages in the brief time of contact with the jumpy guerrillas were provided arms. That was a major complaint though, not protecting the Vietnamese which ended up forcing many South-Vietnamese into the vietcong (The Americans were barely conducting a Counter-Insurgency.).
    2
  30.  @BawdyBadger  It was not the regular Royal Irish Constabulary but the Auxiliary Division of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    2
  31.  @Irishman0855  So more bloodshed for no reason? I am not defending the Unionist community by the way, they were being very injurious to the peace-process and I criticise the British state for relying on unionists so much and for stupid murders like that of Patrick Finucane who defended loyalists and nationalists alike.
    2
  32. Why? It is mostly peaceful now.
    2
  33. @eduardotrillaud696  That is what started the cold war mate. The Americans wanted free-elections for Eastern-Europe.
    2
  34. @willt9721  If you are stating that it was wrong for America to side with the French over courting the Vietnamese then I agree but Ho Chi Minh was no democrat (Unless winning more votes than there are people in your constituency counts, holding no elections for 12 years (Both sham elections mind you.) and enacting brutal land distribution policies. Edit: ")." As for the latter, no imperialism had little to do with the American intervention (The South-Vietnamese wanted the Americans involved.).
    2
  35. @willt9721  The South was objectively more democratic than the North. Maybe at the beginning it was about the same however especially as the War trundled on it had free press and free assembly (Compared to the North.). No such freedoms existed in the North let alone the atrocities committed by the North. Ngô Đình Diệm's selfishness is exaggerated a lot, also what Western things did he introduce exactly? Communism was as alien to Vietnam yet Ho Chi Minh foisted that on an unwilling Vietnam. The Buddhism stuff is again exaggerated, I will draw your attention to an United Nations report entitled: "Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission to South Viet-Nam" (7th December 1963). The United Nations was not a pro-American Foreign Policy institution so do take it with some veracity.
    2
  36. It was arguably legal, the Shah sanctioned it obviously.
    2
  37. @fernandomarques5166  Yeah but only 80,000 died and like 50,000 were Argentinian. It had more to do with Argentinian nonsense than dictatorship as the current democratic regime still claims Las Malvinas.
    2
  38. Meanwhile proceeding to...not blow up the world?
    2
  39. Not really. It just got unpopular because of the Iraq War (2003-2011).
    2
  40. The Americans never terrorised with that.
    2
  41.  @ultrainstincthamza9766  Iraq destroyed them after the British and Americans bombed them in 1998 I believe however they would not let weapons inspectors in.
    2
  42.  @ultrainstincthamza9766  What did they do to Laos? They supported the Hmong people from persecution and they are still being so treated.
    2
  43.  @ultrainstincthamza9766  You mean the Continent? You need to be specific. They indeed did topple many governments.
    2
  44.  @ultrainstincthamza9766  The soviet union supported a regime that stole land and killed around 13,500 people whilst forcing collectivisation. Compared to America who backed a nearly half a billion dollar land-to-tiller law. So try again.
    2
  45. The U.S. did not start that war. It was a useful proxy conflict to damage the Iranians but it was not because they liked Iraq who was a soviet ally.
    2
  46. Nicaragua was governed by the same guy who rules it presently (2023), how is that working out for them (Not well by the way. It was a soviet-backed regime.).
    2
  47. Guatemala is debatable. The premise of 90% of casualties occurring within like six years and 80% within two is hard to believe. The groups involved are fairly evenly divided in their support or opposition.
    2
  48. How about Americans, and indeed the soviets, were not so crazy as people want you to think?
    2
  49.  @Gundamguy-py3ir  Moving N.A.T.O. closer Eastward was a promise unkept. That they have never invaded them does not fill them with glee since they are seen as a hostile military alliance, N.A.T.O. never invaded the soviets in the Cold War but I hardly expect them to view it with glee. Of course I view N.A.T.O. pre-collapse as a good and just thing.
    2
  50.  @Gundamguy-py3ir  I used both words twice.
    2