Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

  1.  @63Hash  To be blunt, most of East Asia would likely treat Ali worse than calling him the N-word. But I respect his perspective regardless.
    9
  2.  @hegaliandialectics4289  Except the US didn't lose. Though MacArthur most assuredly lost his career lol
    7
  3.  @Rae-xd2yb  The US is among the few countries on the planet that ever even bothers talking about its war crimes, ironically. If that is bad for you, then I pity you.
    4
  4.  @LincRych  It is "nothing" since the US never actually caused that. That was caused by the intrinsic state of Iraqi society that it kept hidden itself; it was not a thing that was born from US action. And "other interventions" didn't bring that out either. Americans have an abysmal time not making everything about them. Let me be blunt; not everything is about you.
    4
  5.  @johnl.7754  It's impossible for the US to play the game that China is playing; the optics would be abhorrent. Literally the only reason China is getting credit for its Belt and Road is due to effective propaganda and anti-Western sentiment than anything substantial. Growth in Africa has not increased dramatically since Chinese investments for example, but the CCP still takes the credit for it. It works, so can't blame 'em for that.
    3
  6. This is from the Argentinian POV, eh?
    3
  7.  @tuborg38  National Socialists will be forcibly removed again by US bombers. Seems it has to be in Moscow instead of Berlin this time, though.
    3
  8.  @tuborg38  Keep lying all you want, but the only fascists that need to be bombed to hell atm are in Moscow. Only one side in that war has been arguing that the other side has no right to exist at all.
    3
  9.  @DertekN  Oliver Stone and Graham Philips. Both literal Kremlin fanboys. Are you serious? These people are literally paid by the Kremlin, and you want to take their opinions as fact? While they spin their narrative which ignores how there is a far bigger far right presence in Russia in government and in action???
    3
  10.  @tuborg38  I don't really care. You sound more akin to Osama Bin Laden than Jesus, so your views are hardly "right" in any stretch of the imagination. Fact is that Russian fascists will die and Russia will suffer until that changes, end of story. Your Conservatism wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't based on defending fascism.
    3
  11.  @Pausi10_00  And no one ever will in the idealistic sense for a national government. Because Communism, as an idea, always leads to massive power vacuums that dictators take over from.
    3
  12.  @Radbot776  Bruh, this very video brought up the fact that all of Japan's elite forces within the Kwantung army was redeployed to the Pacific Front againts the Americans. Japan is an ISLAND nation; cripple its Pacific empire and you effectively crippled Japan's ability to fight in the mainland at all. Manchuria was an opportunistic land grab, it wasn't important to ending WW2 whatsoever.
    3
  13.  @Lord_Cabby  Except the US didn't take any resources or try to take any resources. No, all evidence from the period points to the US backing South Vietnam due to tis belief in Domino Theory. If anything, North Vietnam more likely invaded for resources as it exploited it rather quickly after conquering the south.
    2
  14.  @henrybui7133  "Most Vietnamese people" That's untrue. Most North Vietnamese people did, some South Vietnamese did -but it's impossible to say how many actually believed overall. There was no election, and any attempt of an election was prevented by North Vietnam, or am I getting my history wrong? Either way; you cannot say "Vietnamese people vs USA" because that's just Post-Vietnamese unification propaganda.
    2
  15.  @leonardoflorentin  This is an absurd argument. Argentines would never accept if their people were grossly mistreated by another government.
    2
  16.  @feargalbrennan1802  The Soviets did in fact need the US in Europe; they needed their Lend-Lease and Stalin repeatedly demanded a Western Front be opened.
    2
  17.  @tuborg38  And yet you eat up Kremlin propaganda as fact.
    2
  18.  @DertekN  You are defending an imperialist conquest denying the right of a people to exist. You thrive on hatred to begin with.
    2
  19.  @sixmillionsilencedaccounts3517  A dude with a pfp with the Jewish Star of David intermixed with the US flag and blood screeching about the Russian right to kill Ukrainians. Crying about free speech which he would never allow for others if given the chance. This is the enemy. Seems like we need more Dresden bombings.
    2
  20.  @tomsommer8372  US defeated Iraq twice. And won in Yugoslavia. Idk what point u were trying to make here.
    2
  21.  @formalbug5716  Oh, so because a Communist state has one decent thing that led a infinitesimal amount of US veterans to go to Vietnam for medical care; that somehow compares to nearly a million refugees fleeing Vietnam to the US?
    1
  22.  @Z3r0Sk83r  Uh, it wasn't immigration; it was refugees. They fled the second the US left, not after the US used Agent Orange or Napalm. They fled even more when North Vietnam came to Saigon(Ho Chih Minh City now).
    1
  23. @Long Hòa Cao Phục  The same reason why people who used to be united then don't unite; because ideology. Unity is secondary if it's to unify under the wrong type of government, genius. You may as well claim that West Germany, South Korea, South Sudan, and so many other breakaway states were illegitimate too. I ain't the one high on propaganda here; if one side doesn't want "unification" then an attempt to force it is conquest by default. And as I stated; people didn't start fleeing South Vietnam until AFTER North Vietnam was close to finishing South Vietnam off. Not before that. So claiming it was the destruction of the country that caused it makes no sense; they would've left long before that point, not at the last minute.
    1
  24. US felt that being a non-communist was ultimately better than communist but expected the stalemate to last, but it seems that the USSR was fully aware that NK would invade and take over the South and just gave them the green light to do so.
    1
  25.  @HinDoongEe  Purposefully? Well, yeah. The US had little interest in Korea at the time, and was actually in the process of returning to isolationism by severely cutting back its military. "Allowing" the ROK to get overrun had nothing to do with it since the US was not beholden to defend it. It changed its mind with the rising idea of Communist Domino Theory later, but prior to the NK invasion, the US was apathetic.
    1
  26.  @63Hash  The point being that comparing American racism with that of East Asia is like comparing jaywalking with murder. They're only comparable in that they're bad, but the sheer totality of it is simply not comparable.
    1
  27.  @adamhbrennan  Soviet destruction of Eastern Europe is pretty legendary; Soviets outright r*ped Eastern Europe to their way to Berlin; literally nobody sane prefers the Soviet way of war to the Americans.
    1
  28.  @chungusmaximus526  To be fair, that's hardly just a Communist thing. Many leaders have done that, and for all Ho Chih Minh's flaws; it was hardly just him that sought to "re-unite" (start a bloody war) all of Vietnam.
    1
  29.  @Gilvids  Ho Chih Minh fought for that originally, but after that he attacked another sovereign nation called "South Vietnam" and started a large war and dragged other powers into the conflict while aiding the Khmer Rouge into power which started a genocide in Cambodia. Much of the bloodshed that occurred in the next few decades were started by Ho Chih Minh AFTER colonialism was defeated in that region --so you can't act like he was just "fighting for independence".
    1
  30.  @dadnonlyd3  By literally evert single metric in existence, yes the US is morally superior. By far. Jesus Christ.
    1
  31.  @jakejonas7366  North Korea is protected by China. Are you also gonna say that the US didn't intervene in Yugoslavia because it wasn't sitting above lots of dead dinosaurs too? ...Oh wait, they did. Why are people so damned ignorant?
    1
  32.  @robbieaulia6462  Crimea is Ukrainian and the Russians will be expelled from the lands they stole in 2014. Sorry, not sorry.
    1
  33. This is what we call a cultural blind spot.
    1
  34.  @cherrycola542  Actually, I don't think there is a worst war crime outside of the atomic bombings. I could be wrong though.
    1
  35.  @gooseintheshell1290  They personally didn't kill anywhere near that much. Overall the war did cause that kind of damage, but it was not personally done by the US and the war itself was not started by the US but by North Korea backed by the USSR.
    1
  36. ​ @slome815  Issue here being that while US war crimes are being mentioned, no one either cares or even knows much about North Vietnamese war crimes, let alone South Vietnamese war crimes. It paints a rather purposeful picture for people to paint, especially when North Vietnam started the conflict.
    1
  37.  @slome815  I don't blame North Vietnam from fighting the French; that was their independence movement. I do blame them for starting their war of conquest for the south -I don't have any hypocritical beliefs in this. "Vietnam was split in two by foreign powers" The peace that split the two countries was formed by the Geneva Conference; South Vietnam was formed by anti-communist Vietnamese with the support of the French and North Vietnam was formed by Ho Chih Minh with the aid of the Soviets and Chinese -both of these countries had foreign backers. Idk where you're getting this story of "foreigners came and split the country" when the truth is that Vietnamese split the country due to ideology and foreigners backed whomever was more aligned with theirs. The war against the French was their war for independence, the war against South Vietnam was a war of conquest. Mind you, the South Vietnam was hardly a democracy so it can't ever be claimed to be representative of the people -but still there's no question that North Vietnam chose war and the bloodshed of the accompanying "Vietnam War" lies on their feet just as Nazi Germany's sparking of WW2 places the bodies of its war on its feet. The US backs whomever is against their current enemy. Everyone does it. Hell, Vietnam did it in Cambodia and partially caused the Khmer Rouge to get into power. And to be blunt, the US has not actually been in too many wars; it has been in 3 wars during the Cold War and 2 wars afterwards -3 if you count Yugoslavia.
    1
  38.  Freedom 1775  I agree, it ultimately saved more lives than it took by far. That doesn't mean it wasn't a war crime.
    1
  39.  @thekaiseroftheeast3895  I'm sorry, but your argument is absurd. You need to stretch beyond into the stratosphere to assume that Thatcher would ever imagine that Argentina would invade; she isn't a god, there were more pressing concerns at the time. You need this thing called "evidence" before you can even begin to make such an absurd claim, otherwise we can begin guessing that everyone is in reality a mastermind coaxing each other to do stupid things for their political benefit. Not everyone is Bismarck.
    1
  40.  @henriquem.9763  People might actually believe that if Russians didn't shoot at international observers trying to make sure the referendum was actually fair...especially after it was made by foreign troops invading.
    1
  41. UK was hardly a giant superpower at the time. Also, yeah, bad miscalculation to assume the British would just accept it.
    1
  42.  @Rae-xd2yb  No one has the right to mistreat POW's, you disingenuous hack. That's against international human rights laws; it's to the point that any time the US breaks such treatment that the world shames it for doing so. Meanwhile, when the likes of the Vietcong or ISIS does so; no one bothers to reprimand them because no one expects anything of them.
    1
  43.  @Rae-xd2yb  Assuming you're anything you say you are, you just used an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy; something that any college student would be aware of if they bothered to pay attention to class. Good job. How about you engage instead of prove yourself to be a horrid hypocrite, eh?
    1
  44.  @justsomecommentchannel8602  It's also absurd. It isn't like Oversimplified goes into great deal about the circumstances of other countries. Why does France need one? To satisfy national pride or something?
    1
  45.  @mrmarmolerox  Nah, the problem is that many of those "shady deals" (assuming you're talking about international loans) are necessary to not let Argentina become a pariah state. Defaulting multiple times makes it near impossible to justify investing into a country. Also, there is no such thing as a country not dependent on anyone. Not even the US is like that. The biggest issue in Argentina is the absurd corruption and absurd amount of money the government spends just to give their people jobs. Not to mention inflation. Argentina can chart that course as soon as these issues are somewhat solved and the need to get credit from the IMF or World Bank falters.
    1
  46.  @SM-zm5xt  Eh, that really doesn't change the fact that it was born from imperialism. Spanish conquests led to the formation of Argentina; Argentines are most assuredly not the Native Americans, though they take after some of their cultural background. That goes for all of the New World; they're all born from imperialism.
    1
  47.  @tuborg38  Imagine unironically watching crap from a YouTube channel that just so happens to have popped up in 2014 unironically blaming everything on Ukraine. You are so gullible, dude. Fascists in Russia will be crushed, one way or another, I promise you that.
    1
  48.  @tamirj.b.n9814  Just because people may have liked Communism more (unlikely since the US already had a big image of it prior to WW2), doesn't make it a good ideology. We know more than enough to say so conclusively.
    1
  49.  @tamirj.b.n9814  Oh yes, you're right about that. I'm just saying that perception via propaganda is not reality is all. And no, the Soviets didn't single-handedly defeat the Nazi's, they very much required Western aid, as Stalin and Zhukov have both noted.
    1
  50.  @L98fiero  US won in Iraq, wym? Iraq is not as democratic or as US-friendly as it would like, but it most definitely won. Also, the US backs whomever is against the current greatest threat is against them. Nazi Germany saw it back left-wing radicals. USSR saw it back right-wing radicals.
    1
  51.  @L98fiero  The objective was to replace the Iraqi government and put into a new more democratic government. By that very metric the US won in that conflict by achieving its objective, much as South Vietnam's survival was the US' goal in the Vietnam War but it failed in that regard. "Super mess" Iraq's new government asked the US to leave, it could not do anything more unless it wanted to violate the new democratic Iraq's sovereignty -which is how ISIS managed to get such gains since Iraq wasn't ready. Now the US is forced to stick around. The new Iraq was financially more secure than Saddam Hussein's Iraq and more stable in that it doesn't require a dictator to crush dissent 24/7 to keep the peace; but it's military was weak and culture would and still will need much time to move on from that era where the majority Sunni suppressed the Shia as well as inter-tribal conflicts. The US did far more to crush ISIS than anyone else sans the Kurds. Edit: And to be blunt, the Iranian militias themselves had caused much mayhem in their time in Iraq, so their time there was not exactly pleasant. They actively engaged in the insurgency against the new Iraqi government and actively attacked US-Iraqi forces in the midst of ISIS' invasion. So spare me your lionizing of Iran's "help". The nations that the US turned into democracies were never economically subservient to the US. The US either goes in for political interests or economic interests; this case was the former. The US took every opportunity it had to gain economically and used it instead to empower the new Iraq, such as making sure all oil rights it sold were to the highest bidder -including China and Russia being those highest bidders, not the US. The only time US interventionism came back to haunt the US was in Afghanistan, really. But even that is questionable since the mujahideen was what the US supported, and there is no reason the Taliban HAD to emerge from that group; it could have easily been a more moderate Islamic group that won over Afghanistan, but I digress.
    1
  52.  @MrSlavikman  Celebrating a national hero who has a troubling history is not the same as being Nazis. The only one acting like Nazis are the ones invading another country in conquest. So yeah, definitely support Ukraine murking the Russian army until they learn their lesson.
    1
  53.  @tacoking1333  No, that would be more like you. You're the tool that takes any propaganda that goes against the US as fact, when the other guy was just bashing the oil and corporation meme as reasons for the 2003 Iraq War. No self-respecting individual with a brain can take these ideas seriously. Also, the idea that the Iraq War specifically destabilized the region is absurd. The region did not get more or less destabilized until 2011, when the US left too early leaving a power vacuum. The 2003 Iraq War itself did not cause a power vacuum, later decisions did.
    1
  54.  @awfan221  ISIS already existed in Syria prior to the 2003 Iraq War. ISIS became more powerful as a result of patronage from differing Middle Eastern powers, and when the US left in 2011 it became truly a threat when it rolled over meager Iraqi national defenses and took US equipment. Most of its equipment it received from China, though. But "muh evil merica" gets more upvotes, so yay for ignorance!
    1
  55. Vietnam itself was imperialist, so...
    1