General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

GDF
comments

Comments by "" (@johnnotrealname8168) on "There Was No "Cold" War" video.

@degeneration6493 Yeah, the Central Intelligence Agency has opened many of these records (For Iran as an example.).
13
@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
@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
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
@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
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
@ultrainstincthamza9766 The Americans did not do worse and mostly in reaction to.
4
It reminds me of tactical nuclear bombs whose range was equivalent to their blast radius.
3
There was no war in Western-Europe though.
3
@kamarovcliffordsky3458 This comment is confusing.
3
@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
@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
@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
@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
@pacevy3798 Oh, well it was supported of course by the Americans but it had a lot of internal things going on as well.
3
The U.S. has barely started a war, and mostly justified ones.
3
Please explain this, maybe some recommendations too.
2
They did though. The soviets despised America because of their freedoms. They...they argued on this very issue.
2
@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
@anthony_de_paz They had more food than the communistic equivalent strangely enough.
2
Cambodia had one million dead and wait how did you get 300 million?
2
@LeslieBurke8 It should also be borne in mind that the U.S. supported land-reform, unlike collectivisation that the communists just loved.
2
They were used along the most militarised border in history.
2
You mean hitler? You...what?
2
@atlashammercock9582 What circular logic? If you are a member of the vietcong, you are a guerilla fighter and thus not a civilian.
2
@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
@eduardotrillaud696 That is what started the cold war mate. The Americans wanted free-elections for Eastern-Europe.
2
@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
@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
It was arguably legal, the Shah sanctioned it obviously.
2
@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
Meanwhile proceeding to...not blow up the world?
2
Not really. It just got unpopular because of the Iraq War (2003-2011).
2
The Americans never terrorised with that.
2
@ultrainstincthamza9766 Iraq destroyed them after the British and Americans bombed them in 1998 I believe however they would not let weapons inspectors in.
2
@ultrainstincthamza9766 What did they do to Laos? They supported the Hmong people from persecution and they are still being so treated.
2
@ultrainstincthamza9766 You mean the Continent? You need to be specific. They indeed did topple many governments.
2
@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
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
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
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
How about Americans, and indeed the soviets, were not so crazy as people want you to think?
2
@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
@Gundamguy-py3ir I used both words twice.
2
@Gundamguy-py3ir I used "they" for N.A.T.O. and "them" for Russia.
2
We already have a taste. The communists were willing to turn these countries into third-world @#£%holes, in Afghanistan the soviets themselves murdered a million civilians, maimed a million more and turned millions more into exiles and refugees, in Ethiopia they supported a regime that murdered half a million, they aided Idi Amin Dada Oumee directly and this is leaving aside Cambodia which they want to conveniently shunt from responsibility when the vietcong used the khmer rouge and vice-versa. That they can get away with it shows how up front America is with it's own crimes and how vile a regime they faced.
1
The soviet-Afghan War was not provoked by the Americans. Did he claim the C.I.A. was meeting with the leader of Afghanistan or something? If so, so what? If not (Which is true, the leader was a committed communist.) then the soviets as usual were @~?£s!
1
@sentientnatalie Yeah but so did commie states. Russia is not capitalist either. In the 20th Century this argument fails miserably.
1
This is just soviet propaganda. They overthrew the Afghan government twice, invaded the country and are butthurt. Oh and you murdered a million civilians.
1
@lnfinite_Mind The bit that always tickles my feathers is the soviet-union (Through commie Poland.) suppressing an independent Trade-Union while STIFLES LAUGHTER the Central Intelligence Agency was sending posters, banned books and other paraphernalia to support this budding opposition party. However yes, the working class must be suppre...I mean supported.
1
@PrekiFromPoland Ah yes the u.s.s.r. (Okay fine their colony of Poland.), claiming to protect workers but declaring martial law when they dare form an independent union, AH YES!
1
@lnfinite_Mind Often they did not have the bare necessities. The u.s.s.r. had worse health statistics than America!
1
Half of this @~?£ has been public knowledge since the '70s.
1
@OneInTheMosh Maybe, however it can give a one-sided perception of it. The Americans did bad thing? Sure but they did bad thing because other side was Edit2: "busy" threatening literally everywhere on Edit: Earth.
1
@OneInTheMosh What?
1
@OneInTheMosh No.
1
@abderahmandj3845_muslim Iraq is a free country with a democratic state and for @~?£'s sake there are no roaming death squads! You see many Kurds being murdered? Oh wait what is that the Americans were protecting them in the '90s with a no-fly zone?
1
@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 It is called deterrence.
1
@keeshans5768 You commit the same error as many others in this thread of not reading what he wrote. He is writing that in the stand-off between the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (Mainly around the United States of America-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics axis.), the use of nuclear weapons is guaranteed by the doctrines of both blocs (This was indeed the case by the way.). His claim is specific to this situation and not others. For example World War I without nuclear weapons is a hot war and so is any other. The term Cold War is used in reference to the fact that both powers never engaged in that world-ending struggle because the trade-off (Mutual annihilation.) was not worth the gain (Rolling through Moscow or maybe Paris or something.). In fact the reason they wanted to fight is not because of nuclear weapons or their big armies but they built up nuclear weapons and armies to fight as a result of the profound ideological and geo-political tensions between the two.
1
No offence but when? Vietnam was definitely not out of mind in the '60s and '70s and there were protests, minor as they were comparatively, about America's foreign adventures...I wonder why there were none in the soviet union.
1
@danilm5578 This statement makes zero sense given that the communists were also doing the same (Look at Eastern-Europe for @~?£'s sake.) and worse.
1
This guy is an America hater. America won Iraq people.
1
@burnyourhabitat They...they did not do that willingly you idiot. Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was largely left out of discussions for independence and it was because he failed to reform (Plus he sort of sent tanks to suppress independence movements in Estonia and Georgia.), remember Gorbachev was a communist who sought to make the communist system work not a Capitalist. Secondly, the Americans were going to give the Filipinos independence at that date anyway since they had been planning it for a decade. The law was called Philippine Independence Act (1934) and planned for an independence date I guess twelve years later.
1
@burnyourhabitat Bruh! McCarthyism was not wrong by it's foundational premise! There were soviet agents in the U.S. government and the U.S. knew that but were smart enough not to reveal that. For all the badgering about that the worst thing Joseph Raymond McCarthy did was detract through his @#£%ty antics the real threat of communist subversion!
1
There is little evidence of the first one. The U.S. condemned Edit: "Pakistan" at the United Nations and the senate blocked arms shipments however President Richard Milhous Nixon may have sent some during the war. Ehhh, not really. The U.S. was not supportive of Southern-African regimes and I think they should have been by the way (Well except for South-Africa.). They should have stayed for longer.
1
@socire72 You really actually just wrote that it is muh nutsis? He took grain and forced people in, the British at least let people out. The claim has never been made that the famine was only in Ukraine but forced collectivisation exacerbated it too.
1
Which is why Ronald Wilson Reagan was a great man.
1
@8is I knew the Tatars were exiled, even though they were overwhelmingly loyal by the way, but I did not know the Chechens were.
1
@8is WoW! That is WoW!
1
@peenus5120 Why did the soviets murder a million civilians then?
1
@peenus5120 The soviets invaded, murdered the leader of Afghanistan and took over the administration of Afghanistan and murdered a million civilians. I am glad that was covered. Korea was an invasion of the South by the North (Also good to know you lost suck on that.), Vietnam was not anti-colonialism unless you mean the Indochina War but that was a fight against the communist aggressors. The U.S. up to that point were not pro-French there. Angola? You mean when there was a civil-war? You crazy? Yes, the Americans supported the Cuban revolution in 1959...it was stupid.
1
@dwbsovran No, I imagine they were not.
1
@atlashammercock9582 No, they hid. That makes no sense. You cannot be a civilian and vietcong.
1
@sentientnatalie It has little to do with the size of the military, although it is true Counter-Insurgencies require more manpower. There are force-multipliers like helicopters (Very useful.) but the population is the target so protecting them in essence is the job. If you do not, then you will lose (Unless your force-multipliers are really good wherein you can get a political victory.). Also it has nothing to do with Empires, countries today do it such as Iraq.
1
@sentientnatalie Post-Iraq War Iraq was supported by a Coalition of countries that helped establish it. Dude, this is not the best example to espouse this @#£% about Empire. Iraq was free for the first time ever. The Kurds for goodness sake were able to live without fear of genocide. Of course more trouble came. In any case Iraq has a democratically-elected leadership which sides with Iran a lot.
1
@sentientnatalie They are a free and independent people, they do not need me to say that. What? It was certainly aided by the stupidity of the Iraqi government after the Americans left, treating sunnis mighty well, but extremism was already in the country from syria which had nothing to do with the West. Sure, they are not great but nowhere near as bad as our Iraqi hero. Yes, exactly. Iraq, a majority shia country, decides to be close to their shia neighbour. Not quite American Empire is it? Stopping a genocidal tyrant is an acceptable use of imperialism if that is what you will call it.
1
@kamarovcliffordsky3458 No, it is not. It is because communists claim they can give more than they can. Inevitably they fail, just shut up about class consciousness, commie countries exploited plenty.
1
@kamarovcliffordsky3458 Russia was the fastest industrial nation in the world but notably it was not yet as industrial as Germany. Everyone thought Germany or Britain was ripe for revolution but it happened in Russia because Karl Marx was an idiot. Also many of the reforms the soviets promised the Tsardom already enacted, just too late to save them clearly.
1
@kamarovcliffordsky3458 Yeah, this is exactly why America opposed the soviets.
1
@kamarovcliffordsky3458 It is though. Russia was industrialising with capital investment from France, her ally. Of course it resulted in labour agitation but Russia was still a very agricultural country compared to Germany or Britain.
1
I disagree. Mutually Assured Destruction is MAD so instead there needs to be a way of countering that threat.
1
Bruh! Your country is so lucky to have an ideology that basically allows you to not defend what America does.
1
@n8zog584 The Americans were the only successful ones.
1
@kravan5063 The Germans were not capable of making nuclear weapons. The fear may have been legitimate at the time but there is no way they could have built it.
1
@baddreams0919 He was a scientist though. Thank the politicians, the military was in many cases willing to nuke @#£%.
1
Ronald Wilson Reagan was indeed a good man.
1
@kravan5063 The nazis were not going to build one simply because they managed to kill many of their best scientists if they were lucky.
1
@correiaivan Murderer?
1
@correiaivan Those are the Saints ya dum dum.
1
@correiaivan One person died during a riot and later when the Governor did something, sending the National Guard in, protesters tried poisoning them. Sad by the death of course but no not a murderer.
1
@correiaivan The Contras were fine to be honest. They were as good or bad as any other guerilla force. The War on Drugs was necessary and seems to have worked overall. Of course this is not to claim it was all sunshine and roses, there were mistakes made, however it was good to stop people getting hooked on drugs
1
@correiaivan What?
1
@correiaivan Simple less consumption. Of course Ronald Wilson Reagan cannot be impugned for modern non-enforcement of the Southern border.
1
@correiaivan Dude what the @#$%? The British focus on Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher misses the fact it was Leonard James Callaghan, Baron Callaghan of Cardiff who ended the policy of full employment because it lead to high inflation. Also yes you moron of course that is what Cold War meant. Stop pointing out the obvious and then claim to have made a revelation. This does miss the fact that Germany was the most militarised border in history, currently it is Korea. As for policies, mass-murder tends to be a bad one.
1
@R_-kd1br People not hooked on drugs is a good thing.
1
The latter book is not written by a historian and by the 1980s the United States was not planning on winning a nuclear war. Ronald Wilson Reagan was probably the most anti-nuclear President ever.
1
@stargazer162 Firstly, not fascist. That label is literally just soviet propaganda (Look up the name for the Berlin Wall if you do not believe me.). Secondly, we do know about it already. You know how? The Senate investigated it back in the '70s. None of this is new information but has been recorded in documentaries going back to the '80s even. Meanwhile the nature of the soviet regime in Afghanistan for example goes unmentioned or the weaponisation of mental asylums in the early '80s and other @~?£ is unmentioned. Reading your average YouTuber you get the impression the Americans were war-mongering and going insane but the soviets were still being @~?£s.
1
@anthony_2327 Well the Central Americans today who are suffering are those who are under socialist or leftist governments.
1
@stargazer162 Well the U.S. did some shady stuff to prevent or stop commie aggression. I think the proof is in the outcome and that communist states have not willingly democratised.
1
@anthony_depaz Yes, the Democratic Central-Americans.
1
@RusselTanTing-kf8zm How?
1
@stargazer162 They are more likely than not to bring you peace and democracy. Even into the '80s the soviets were genociding Afghans, supporting the genocidal Ethiopians and supporting idiotic policies that led to starvation if not famine. Oh and of course they were a totalitarian state that suppressed other states directly.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 Depends on the situation. In Chile for example, whilst I will not dispute the legality of it, the fact is that he got in with only a plurality of votes.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 If your neighbour went nazi, you would not be thinking: "Oh, the Democratic process must be respected." The same applies to communism. The assumption that such tyranny should be permitted to be brought into power through votes is already how one tyrant got into power.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 If the government is actually better than the alternative sure. In Cuba, the communists were supported by America for the sake of democracy and look at the @#£% we got. A regime that was arguably worse than the awful alternative, now add Ethiopia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos e.t.c. The communists do not want democracy.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 YouTube deleted my other replies, I was not being controversial either. Just Germans, you would not let Germans become your leader, or your neighbour's, just because of muh democracy.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 If the alternative is better then yes. I think if Cambodia was not allowed to fall then a worse alternative would not have arisen. Similar in the Americas, on many an occasion when America did feel guilty and support the leftist insurgency I Cuba or Nicaragua well guess where that ended up? The commies do not want democracy people.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 Not a regime that would take those freedoms. Again Germany.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 YouTube again deleted my comment so uhhh depends on if the alternative government is better.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 Well they were spreading their ideology through subversion. The spread of such an ideology is what America opposed. To counter such a threat I believe one can take certain otherwise immoral actions.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 It is very difficult to keep up correspondence with you because my replies are deleted and I cannot fathom why, I include no links and am not being offensive. The communist threat is a grave threat to peace, stability and good governance for the people so to counter that threat certain otherwise immoral deeds can and should be undertaken.
1
Yes...there has not been a nuclear war.
1
@8is I agree. It was America that was feeding the soviets, the grain was bought of course, and notably only the U.S. had the nuclear bomb by the end of World War II but did not demand more territory. Instead they wanted free-elections in Eastern-Europe. Instead the soviets did not want free elections in Eastern-Europe.
1
@Kolokommouna BRUH! Yes it is wrong, for starters the Americans opposed colonialism as well and was more than happy to support land reform and indeed conducted land reform (So much for "enriching the capitalists".). Also the regimes that took over were invariably not goody-two shoes liberal regimes but violent and destructive to the very people they claimed to liberate. Stop kidding us with communist propaganda.
1
If you mean them losing the war? Yeah they were restrained in many ways. If you mean it was the U.S.' fault for being involved, I would dispute it.
1
@willt9721 Why involvement?
1
@willt9721 Bruh! At least you reject the idiotic idea that the Americans prevented Vietnam from having elections in the 1950s. Also I am writing about both 1946 and 1960. Ho Chi Minh did not win his elections. Furthermore, while I will not claim anything about his personal popularity, I do think many in the South at least did not want communism in their country.
1
Please explain what you mean by this. If you have recommendations please provide them.
1
@panzerwafflez7228 Oh boy which ones? I like how scholarship is so sure that the West committed this atrocity and it killed so many but with the soviets they swear it was not their fault and it was actually really minor (Yes, the holodomor. Edit: ).
1
@DissidentB DOUBT! There are plenty of documentaries from the '80s that document the crimes of the Central Intelligence Agency. @#£% there were Senate investigations (Funny how the U.S. could have these.).
1
@Darloss9508 They never stopped occupying them.
1
@Darloss9508 This definitely is not true.
1
Are you just not going to mention the União Nacional para a Independência Total de Angola (U.N.I.T.A.)?
1
@daviddolezal8428 Yes and the Americans used it to squeeze the Russians. It was a giant own-goal too as the only reason the Mujahideen rose up was because of a ruthless communist regime that overthrew a government the communist party had helped establish. Oh yeah and the soviet union murdered a million Afghans. Where is the hue and cry about the third-world?
1
@bigboi7817 By other Africans usually.
1
@mindgames7411 Try feeding your people first commie.
1
Meanwhile the United States having to sell grain to the u.s.s.r. because they could not feed themselves but oh yes the class divide go on write to us.
1
@OneInTheMosh Both China and India exploded their economies after liberalising economically, try again.
1
Very disingenuous way of framing it. The commies of course exploited social woes and caused more misery with their newfound power but Capitalists are not opposed to land-reform for example. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, South-Vietnam, El Salvador and so much more. They also oddly did not just steal the land through forced collectivisation.
1
@kevenlopez2782 Nayib Armando Bukele Ortez seems to have been solving the crime issue. As for El Salvador here SIGH are you sure "they sold to the guerrillas" because that makes them accomplices, which does not justify their massacre of course. I must also question why that furthers your left-wing views whilst the murder of Ethiopian children during their red terror does not further your right-wing views.
1
@opez2782 The former. Also the Derg also suppressed ethnic minorities. The wars of independence continued into their regime as well. Edit: Wait red scare? There was a red terror not red scare.
1
@kevenlopez2782 So they co-operated with communist guerillas? That is a bit @~?£ed up, again they did not deserve to die but they were co-operating. His policies seem to be doing good and are popular, I hope El Salvador gets out of her brutalities.
1
@kevenlopez2782 Or revolutionaries who do what revolutionaries always do. Supported by the soviet union of course.
1
@kevenlopez2782 This makes no sense on many levels. They very much were socialist and pushed it on the rest of the world as normal.
1
The communists literally took over the government!
1
@fish_birb Better described as a democide as it was against political party members not an ethnic group. This does not diminish the horrible nature of it. One aspect however I will defend, ousting Koesno Sosrodihardjo was justified as he was attacking neighbouring Malaysia, which was not really doing anything bad (Her own communist Counter-Insurgency was very mild.), but other than that yeah it was @#£%ed up.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 The soviets murdered hundreds of thousands if not a million civilians there...no need to elaborate.
1
@ultrainstincthamza9766 Yes, stopping the communists from attacking their Southern neighbour who was objectively better. Dude, stop it this is weak.
1
@VictoryLlama No they do not. Apart from the Georgian and the two invasions of supposedly independent nations people do not know anything. It is also not whataboutism because I do not, in large part, support what the Americans did. It was counter-productive and often did not even help.
1
The U.S. has tried supporting anti-authoritarian governments but you still go on about how evil it is.
1
@kingdomofprussia4649 It would help explain it at the very least. Furthermore there are some actions that would otherwise not be acceptable but because of the nature of the enemy is for example commies are anti-democratic and evil therefore they ought not to have political rights (If you want insert nazis in here and Germany as a contemporary example.). Normally not allowing a certain group political representation is bad but because this group seeks to remove the political rights of everyone then you get the idea. Now maybe not the whole murder so many but this is a general point.
1
@anthony_2327 Today? The U.S. tried to stop them but liberals whine all the same.
1
@anthony_de_paz You mean today? What?
1
@weaponized_toaster How about both then?
1
@weaponized_toaster There rarely are any or at the very least they are not portraying it as if the communists were defending a country against fascists or something. Both were wrong and the commies were worse.
1
@weaponized_toaster Someone keeps deleting my comments.
1
The West supported the Koreans, Vietnamese and Laotians. The Hmong are regularly given asylum by the Americans from communist persecution.
1
@weaponized_toaster No, it is not! It is all that is talked about!
1
Even I, an inveterate anti-communist, lulled myself into the belief maybe the soviets had softened by the 1980 but then I looked into Afghanistan and probably a million civilians were murdered...well then.
1
@dooplisss A War that lasted what six years?
1
@Gundamguy-py3ir How? I was responding to you so them as opposed to they who I already defined as N.A.T.O. by mentioning them.
1