I never said that. You said that US was better. They were not. USSR had a few puppets going cannibals but it was not intentional.
US intentionally and knowingly supported death squads, they were so afraid of losing their dictators in Central America that death squads was lesser evil to them.
Yes, I said that and I stand by it. What makes Soviet cold war crimes different from USA's is the western free press and their ability to report on it. But this was only while they were going on. When the regimes fell after the fall of USSR, all the communist crimes surfaced and we learned of the reality of it. Way worse than the American supported fascist regimes. By far. The fascist regimes at least had a free market. The communist regimes often destroyed the lives of dissenter's entire families. I have been in a Nicaraguan torture centre used by the communist regime. They're museums now. You can go and see for yourself.
US neocolonialism in Africa was a direct result of USSR neocolonialist puppet regimes in Africa.
What does that even mean?
After WW2 all the great powers except France and Portugal were dismantling their empires. This created a power vacuum in those countries. Something that the USSR immediately tried to exploit to set up their own puppet regimes. Using the same tried and tested methods they used in Eastern Europe. USA and allies saw what was happening and moved in to block the USSR from effectively taking over the entire developing world. Which was a real risk.
The Domino Theory didn't come from thin air. We can discuss how big of a risk it was and how likely USSR was to take over all of Africa. But you can't deny it was happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domin...domino theory was a,follow in a domino effect.
They felt pressured into it, by Russia.
Well, after refusing african countries have their own government and ...... democracy.
We can debate the ethics of the methods used by USA. But in many of the cases they saved African countries from becoming Soviet puppet states. While Mobotu was a horrendous dictator in Zaire/DRC. Would a communist Soviet puppet dictator been better? If those are your only choices I'm not sure USA needs to be ashamed of themselves.
Again, I'm not defending all of USA's actions during the Cold War. They did a lot of questionable things. But right now we're comparing the guilt of USA to that of USSR. And in that comparison USA wins, IMHO.
Sorry dude, USSR did good in Africa, they made occasional mistakes of supporting assholes but overall they were on the right side of history.
Challenge accepted. Name one of the African Soviet puppet states... I mean... states under the protection of USSR in Africa... that wasn't a complete disaster? These all came to power with Soviet money and Soviet weapons in revolutions orchestrated by Moscow. I'll argue that everything USSR touched in Africa turned to absolute shit. After King Leopold and AIDS, I think USSR was the worst thing that ever came to Africa. And once USSR disappeared the corrupt and unpopular communist dictators had trouble staying in power.
Look who is meddling. Why don't you meddle in Saudi Arabia?
Again, it's whataboutism. Russia is a bigger problem for the world than Saudi Arabia. That's why the focus is on Russia.
BTW, the west did meddle in Saudi Arabia. That's why the Saud family took power in it.
Not at all, I merely pointing out actual motives behind action of the West which have nothing to do with democracy and kumbaya. It's all about money. US did not care that they were supporting a dictator as long as he was THEIR dictator.
I actually do think it was about democracy. Or rather to protect democracy in the west. To deny the two communist super powers to take over the world. It's the same reason the west is trying to stop Putin now.
There was no soviet imperialism.
You're delusional. You mean like all the Eastern European countries in the Warsaw pact were free to pursue whatever policies they wanted? The communist dictator of Hungary constantly tried to escape Soviet control, but couldn't. Albania allied with China, to protect themselves from USSR.
Just because the Soviets used Orwellian Newspeak doesn't mean it wasn't an empire. It was an empire in practice.
Yes, they did. Ho Chi Minh was a Russian agent and financed by Russia. Without Russia the Vietnam war wouldn't have happened. Without Russian money, Ho Chi Minh would have been a non-starter.
Bullcrap, all that dude wanted it to get independence and West collectively denied it because they wanted to keep their colonies.
You're naive. Once the communists took power in Vietnam they destroyed it. They were much freer under the French. I'm not defending colonialism here. I'm just pointing out that it was a war between Russia and USA and it would have been better for the Vietnamese if USA would have won.
Yet, USA's openness meant the propaganda was one sided turned against them. I haven't seen any pop cultural references to Russia's crimes in Vietnam. Have you? In spite the fact that that regime is still in power in Vietnam. That's all Russia's fault.
No, that's US fault. Vietnam did not give a fuck about communism at the time. All they wanted to stop being a french colony. They went to US for help, US said "Fuck you! you stay the way you are". And only after that they went to USSR. Your fucking fault.
But that doesn't excuse the setting up of a Russian communist puppet state in Vietnam. How is that in any way better? How is that not just more colonialism?
You're making it out as if Ho Chi Minh was the inevitable first ruler of a free Vietnam. Why? Viet Minh started out as a nationalist movement, and only later became communist. Why? Well, because Russia paid for their weapons and training. They did also get money and weapons from USA. But at that point he was already a Russian agent.
Because USSR did not invade Vietnam. That's what vietnamese dude in America told me.
They certainly bankrolled the Vietnamese army.
All your arguments are essentially "We are the good guys so we can do any shit"
Let me tell you something, such logic will never work. It just does not.
That has not been my arguments. But your arguments seem mostly to be to deny reality outright, and just endlessly repeat the Soviet propaganda, that was NEVER true.
In conclusion, USSR was a shitty country which preferred to oppress their own citizens as opposed to foreigners which were simply bought with all kind of help. Whereas Western "democracies" preferred to keep all these great developments/achievements for themselves and dirty banana republics were not worthy and should be ruled by dictators.
That's the lamest and laziest post-colonial analysis I've ever seen. You're confusing colonialism with post-colonialism. Two distinct phases in western meddling in the world. Secondly I don't think oppressed people in general cared who oppressed them. People who are oppressed and who have had their freedoms removed, aren't free. Regardless of the colour of the guy oppressing them. But you're trying to make that out as a huge difference. The communist dictators propped up with USSR were also dictators. These regimes were awful. In almost every case much worse than the fascist regimes USA supported. There's a couple of exceptions. But very few.
It is amazing how the Soviet Union managed in the 1960'ies and 1970'ies to almost completely fool the left in the west with their propaganda. But that was always lies. And you're just repeating those lies. Sensible people knew it was lies in the 60'ies, and 70'ies to. And now today, we all know it was lies. Everybody except you.
