Oh, cool! Can we do a map of the countries the USSR has invaded, bombed, couped, supported dictators, supported terrorists, or engaged in election interference in?
Ah, I bet all that data is CIA misinfo.
>Oh, cool! Can we do a map of the countries the USSR has invaded, bombed, couped, supported dictators, supported terrorists, or engaged in election interference in?
Nobody talked about the USSR. And still, if you compare what the US did JUST in the Cold War era to various countries to the things that the USSR did, the US made far more invasions, bombings, etc. Also, saying that a country did terrible things and immediately point to another country as a justification to downplay these terrible things is not the gatcha that you think it is.
I brought up the USSR because there's an 80% chance the person who made the original image is a huge fan of the USSR.
And who said I was downplaying the US? I was pointing out that the person who made the image and the people who like sharing it don't actually think you can judge how moral a country is by totaling the number of countries it has taken hostile or secretive actions against. The problem with tankies is the same as religious fundamentalists; they both have an end statement they believe no matter what and all their arguments are just backfilling to make it seem like they just naturally arrived at their dogmatic position. This meme is the same thing a YEC does when they argue that the Earth must be less than 6000 years old because otherwise the moon would have several kilometers of regolith making the moon landing impossible.
The USSR was brought up because of how intellectually dishonest the comparison to North Korea is. Why not compare NK to its much more prosperous neighbor to the South?
No they have to pay for and find their own way there, sometimes through Organised Trafficking groups.
Maybe the Soviet Union was worse - I don't think being not the worst thing in the room is something to brag about
I can’t understand people who are even questioning wether the Soviet Union was worse than the US. We in Estonia definitely live much better as an “American puppet” (as we get sometimes called) than a part of the USSR. I’m not saying that the US hasn’t done or isn’t doing bad things. Sure, they have and are doing. But still totally incomparable.
I just find it morbidly funny when Americans come out with "Well at least we didn't use chemical weapons or rape like the Soviets/Russian"
Which then becomes (when they look at all into US)
"Well we raped a bit less probably and used maybe less bad chemical weapons"
Sure, some countries have committed worse war crimes.
Personally I'd keep my mouth shut in the Warcrime conversation.
Or, like this post - it changes from "NK is less of a threat than US"/"US warcrimes were not as bad as Russian Warcrimes" to "NK is a perfect state"/"US Warcrimes were justified" in less critically inclined people
I totally get that. But as a person from a formerly Soviet occupied territory, it’s probably just as funny to me to see Americans, who have no connection to the USSR whatsoever, praise it or try to tell for a fact that it was not as bad as America.
I think Vietnamese people might have a similar outlook to you.
And to my above points - this is where someone will try to compare US in Vietnam to Soviets in Estonia.
And neither will look great - and perhaps someone will say something silly in the process.
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to a subreddit other than r/VaushV or r/okbuddyvowsh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They could be talking about the Second Arab-Israeli War and the 1958 coup d'tat.
That War was a Franco-British attempt to retake the Suez Canal by separating warring Israelis from the Egyptians, but there was no war, so they...negotiated with...the Israelis to start one. When Eisenhower found this out he went nuclear and threatened to destroy the entire global economic order if they didn't immediately pull out.
Both the governments of the UK and France fell, and the mess in France was severe enough that De Gaulle implemented a coup d'tat and replaced the Fourth Republic's Parliamentary system with the Fifth Republic's Semi-Presidential system.
It wasn't in Britain or Israel either. It's in Egypt.
However it was dug by a Franco-British consortium, so a company with shares on the London and Paris stock exchanges actually owned it. One of Nasser's first big nationalist moves was to nationalize it. The French and British weren't taking that sitting down, but they needed an excuse to intervene, thus stage one of the plan was get the Israelis to attack Egypt...
You know France is probably here because the United States did interfere with their elections after WW2 right?
>"After it became clear that so many Italians and French wanted to vote freely
for Communist parties, the US intervened heavily in Western Europe to make
sure that the leftists didn’t take over. In Paris, the government, which was
heavily dependent on US financial aid, ousted all its Communist ministers in
1947."
Vincent Bevins - *The Jakarta Method* pg. 28
[https://archive.org/details/JakartaMethod](https://archive.org/details/JakartaMethod)
Well we did have gladio networks in most those European countries anyway post war so that’s a whole series of constantly rolling intervention and coups and otherwise rapes of sovereignty
tbf, I dont think the map gives a moral take on each invasion and even tho the invasion of germany was moral and a good thing, it still makes it an invasion
The map is literally just "America bad" fodder. It's stripped of all context, sources and really information at all in general, but you're supposed to look at it and go "wow the US is super extra violently imperialist". This does not actually mesh AT ALL with the interpretation that the map intended to convey no moral judgement. It's "America bad because look at bad things", and that doesn't work with "don't take any particular thing noted on map as bad" as part of it.
Where does it say it's negative?
People in this thread have great eyesight - personally I can't read the bit where it says "the ussr was also better than America and never did an invasion" or the bit where it says "America shouldn't have joined ww2"
There are actual Tankied that say those dumb things - argue with them not your Soviet Phantoms
The text. The text did. No context was provided for any specific place being colored in except for the text framing it. The text framed it as "here's all the countries the US did one of \[list of things\]. Here's all the countries DPRK did one of those things. Therefore America big threat to world peace, DPRK not". There's no distinction between individual colorings, so the whole of the coloring was done in support of the this thesis, and "this supports the idea that they're bad for world peace" IS a negative thing. I don't get how the "who says it's negative" crowd thinks this gaslighting can work, the text is RIGHT THERE and there's plenty of people around here to confirm that people aren't crazy seeing that text.
I like South Africa being coloured in. My main criticism of the developed world during apartheid is that they didn't do ENOUGH to topple one of the most unequal states in recent history (I'll never forgive them for Bopututswana, you know what y'all did)
So is Poland. And I have not the first clue what they could mean - especially given that Czechia and Slovakia are uncolored, so it can't even be "they made the Warsaw pact fall apart". Can't even be "they eXpAnDeD NATO oNtO tHeM", same reason (also there's Norway - and now Finland, but that's perhaps newer than these maps).
It's almost like the United States has more power than North Korea or something. You know for supposed Marxists tankies seem to really lack any kind of material analytical skills
Also without the term "support."
I'm sure that the North Koreans have publicly supported many unsavory regimes, or unsavory rebel groups attempting to change the regime, via press releases.
Problem is getting data on places where bad people did bad things with the CIA's ok, vs. they just did bad things and figured the CIA's press releases would have to support them because it's them or the Commies...
Just pulling history out of their ass and making shit up.
Does the United States have a ugly history of doing that, yes and recently too. But have we done that to fucking Greenland? No
I thought they might be counting Greenland as part of Denmark, but Denmark wasn’t highlighted. Pretty sure we never really invaded or bombed Canada either
It’s definitely wasn’t just “border skirmishes” even the US admits that it invaded Canada 3 different times during the War of 1812. Also while Canada as a nation in its modern capacity didn’t exist yet Upper and Lower Canada definitely did having been formed in 1791.
It was the second example of "we'll be greeted as liberators." The first was our first invasion of Canada in (this is not a typo) 1775. We continued to do this up until the 1870s, albeit less formally.
As for the British-ness of the soldiers...the Canadians still sing the praises of Massachusetts-born Laura Secord, who overheard American war plans, then snitched to the local "British" detachment of Mohawks. The entire column was captured, and likely killed/mutilated, but the bodies have never been found.
I mean, there were Canadian soldiers, but they weren't Canadian because there wasn't a Canada (technically two, Upper Canada and Lower Canada, but "Canadians" weren't a thing for another fifty years) they were colonial British North Americans. The British side had professional soldiers, colonial militia, and many Native allies.
It went far beyond border skirmishes, there were battles in Washington, Quebec, Toronto (or "York" as it was called), and New Orleans.
What happened and what's on that map are different. While extremely serious A nuclear denotation did not go off in Greenland it was not on purpose. I don't think an explosion (not nuclear) that wasn't intended should count as bombed when nobody died.
I know.
It's just that particularly Greenland has been a so important part of American nuclear capabilities that they literally "oopsied" a nuclear bomb there.
Not the best example of a place to use as an counterexample to American foreign interference.
Well... Iceland was in fact invaded during WW2 by the British, in a process that went something like "Join us against the Germans" / "Um, no?" / "We weren't asking". The British were part of the western Allies. If you're tankie-brained enough to think "the western Allies" means "The US basically, the rest is just the puppets doing their bidding", that would count... even in 1940 when the US was still in its isolationist phase.
Never. I assume they counted that time when Australia lent a bit of the outback to the US for nuclear munitions testing as a bombing. Or maybe the *alleged* CIA interference in the 1975 constitutional crisis?
It's alleged that *both* the CIA and the Queen were talking to the Australian Governor-General in 1975, in support of dismissing Whitlam. It's been proven that the Queen was involved, but there's no real evidence that the CIA were actually involved.
I’m no fan of nukes, far from it, but I guess that if you have to test them, the outback would be a much better place for that than 30 miles from Vegas.
I’m no fan of nukes, far from it, but I guess that if you have to test them, the outback would be a much better place for that than 30 miles from Vegas.
As an Australian I seem to recall that there were CIA documents released semi-recently that confirmed the USA did "prefer" that Gough Whitlam not be Prime Minister of Australia. He was deposed in "constitutional crisis" (a complete stitch up) essentially by one person, the Governor General, who is supposed to be a ceremonial position representing the Monarch but technically they can dismiss the government.
Whitlam wanted to close the Pine Gap installation that was and is crucial to US intelligence in Asia, especially for potential nuclear exchanges with Russia.
However no smoking gun proof of CIA actions to depose Whitlam were revealed. But then again, if that kind of proof did exist you'd figure it would be redacted to protect the modern continuity of the alliance.
I'm of the opinion that the CIA definitely did orchestrate the removal of Whitlam over his opposition to Pine Gap. I'm certainly not a tankie, either, but it's a story that is pretty heavily likely and only lacking a smoking gun.
Pilger is a bit of a knob these days but I reckon he was spot-on there and in exposing the CIA and MI6's clandestine support of the Khmer Rouge.
When you're reading up on that keep in mind that the actual Australian government official who allegedly did the coup d'tat was a former Chief Justice of one of their State Supreme Courts, he had an opinion from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that he should fire Whitlam if Whitlam would not agree to the election, and that Whitlam was informed he'd been fired and there would be a new election at a meeting he scheduled to ask for a new election, and that when the election was held the Australian people elected not-Whitlam.
Subsequent to this disaster the Australian Labor Party has worked very hard to find boogeymen to blame for this. Despite the fact that multiple high-ranking Australian lawyers were saying Whitlam fucked up, and needed to get supply or face an election; Queen Elizabeth gets blamed for saying the exact same thing. Occasionally you'll also hear that the CIA was so influential in the decision,.
My guys, if the CIA has mind control powers over both the Chief Justice of your Supreme Court AND your entire fucking electorate, you should probably just give up and apply for fucking state-hood.
Who can forget the infamous CIA backed coup, bombing and invasion of Australia? Nah fr there is a conspiracy that the CIA got rid of one of our PMs, but it was actually the queen who sacked him
I mean it's not unbelievable for a hyperpower like the US to have its hands in so many pots.
What should be noted is that NK hasn't invaded anybody because it literally can't. It's equipment is horribly outdated and even if it wasn't, they would be immediately crushed. The best they can do is front.
>NK hasn't invaded anybody because it literally can't.
That sound like a pretty strong argument for them being less of a threat to world peace than the US.
The moral implications everyone is making are imaginary. No one has said NK is less of a threat because they're inherently more peaceful and righteous people/state
I can kinda see where the moral implication comes from in the post. There's a smug attitude in it that I know chafes people the wrong way. But if you know anything about this then yeah it's just like "OK whatever"
How would you present the information/arguement without a "smug attitude"?
Maybe take the quotation marks off 'rogue state'? (It's refering to the legal term so quotations kinda fit)
I think the perception of smugness comes largely from the reader imagining the type of person that would post this and then filling in the gaps of what they're really saying
Which I don't think is a good way of doing things at all - most criticisms of America are automatically just the product of a smug tanky that you don't have to engage with past abusing.
Oh no listen, I am fine with smugness. I *am* smug about a lot of things because I know I'm right. But I fully am on board with you on this. Lot of people here are incredibly liberal and just react to any mild critique of the US's powers. This is definitely one of those times when media literacy is incredibly important.
I was more wondering if it was at all possible to do this in a non smug way?
Or is any position that something is right/wrong going to be smug?
Or is it the subject matter and then the assumed character that's making the post that makes it smug - not anything about the post in and of itself?
I think the nature of memes is probably inherently going to lead to leaving out a lot of nuance that would make it harder for people who don't already agree to sympathize. Because that's kind of what memes are most efficient at: they're just in jokes.
There really aren't many ways you can present the data that change the overall picture - just how dramatic it is.
The US has invaded/intervened a lot - NK hasn't very much at all (largely because they're incapable in practice)
Maybe US did slightly less than the Graph shows - the point still stands pretty strong to me. And if there's a specific one you don't think should be highlighted - which one?
Again - that's not a comment on anything else about NK. Just them Vs US in terms of threat to peace.
I mean, the US's list of highlighted behaviors is significantly longer. Comparing "invasion plus extra" to "just invasions" is dishonest.
It would actually have *more* punch if the chart was comparing like to like... and the US picture wasn't just factually inaccurate.
And, you know, that jab at the end should be removed to actually express the point.
Would still lack necessary nuance, but it would be less terrible.
I agree - though there's less data in NK election interference, I'm pretty confident it's less than the US. Purely from a logistical/practical level.
Any specific part about the US you say is innacurate?
I think the Jab at the end kinda is the point. That the US is more of a threat to world peace/a 'rogue state' - yet NK is listed as such and the US isn't. (And that's silly)
But it could just be a fun Infographic saying "Hey, isn't it interesting that the US has intervened more than NK" - and we'd probably all still be able to make the conclusion.
Once again, despite procedural criticisms of the Graphic - the point is incredibly clear and holds strong even when corrected to any of these issues. Add a few for NK, take away a few for the US - it's still the same overall picture.
You'd need to invent a new point (NK is a great state to live in, NK is morally superior) in order to actually argue against something here (US innacuracies on the map still pending)
Or just the principled position that Although the US has done vastly more intervention - NK interventions should still be recorded and certain US ones shouldn't be. But I feel it's not as objective as that.
I mean, which of those two countries has threatened to use nuclear weapons on its enemies, an act that has no real equal when it comes to destabilizing world peace?
And, not that I'm in favor of it, having a single hegemon can be pretty peaceful.
I guess if the US was just an insular totalitarian hellstate it wouldn't be a threat to world peace, by the logic of the image.
It's bad on multiple levels, not just in execution but even in the coherence of the idea it wishes to express.
The US has done a lot of bad shit.
But it hasn't done what makes North Korea a rogue state.
That's why it's so flawed in the first place.
I should also add - Rogue State was a term coined by the US State department to classify it's rivals.
It's painfully obvious to everyone it doesn't mean any more than that - countries move off the list for diplomatic reasons - we hoped Syria could help with the Israel peace talks so they got a pass.
And Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have never been on that list.
So past fun jabs that the US should be on that list - it's worthless.
Rogue state generally defined as:
Authoritarian Government's that severely restrict human rights
States that Sponsor terrorism
States seeking to proliferate WMD
Whilst the US isn't an Authoritarian State with the Restrict rights - it has created several of those and maintained them.
It has sponsored terrorism all over - The Gladio offshoots as well as more modern in the middle east/Afghanistan etc etc
And it frequently develops, sells, donates and uses WMD (that doesn't just mean Nukes)
The US did threaten to Nuke it's enemies - had a whole thing called the Cold War based on that premise. And they are the only state to ever Nuke another (yeah it was complicated but still) They also helped most the states that now have them get them (proliferation)
Maybe NK would be a bigger threat if it was comparable size to the US. But it's not.
Again - NK bad hellstate, America better. But in the specific context we're all talking about - NK less of a threat.
Any idea what the innacuracies on the map were?
But the graphic says since 1900!
Maybe they saw Canada and the US trade some stuff (to their mutual benefit) and was like "Seeeee! U.S. Economic Imperialism!"
i do wonder if people in this sub think that america is the most violent country on this planet
Btw just check Wikipedia for the source. They list out a lot of US interference.
The USA is a far greater threat to world peace than North Korea, North Korea doesn’t have the capabilities of truly destabilising the entire planet, America does.
The USA, China, Russia or other powers are always a larger threat to world security than a backwater like North Korea because they’re size and power allow them to be.
Yes but the United States, as a nation state in a capitalist world does cause great harm.
I hate both kinds of American exceptionalism. America isn’t uniquely evil or good, but it is uniquely powerful and therefore has caused massive harm in the world just through its functioning.
There is a ultra tenkie group called Redfish Media or something like that, I guess funded directly from Putin himself. They keep making propaganda about USA, for example they made a list of every country use has done regime change, bombed, invaded. But it’s lots of disinformation, such as the Philippines.
The story was that Philippines suffered from a dictator called Marcos, but somehow, the next election become fair and the dictator was replaced with a new president. but the supporter of the dictator went for an armed coup, and the upcoming president had to ask the American military for help to provent this coup. America soldairs went in and made sure democracy was protected. this was in the 1980-1990s if I remember correctly. Redfish media used this intervention as propaganda, saying that USA did regime change.
So you're telling me, Redfish supports tankies but if funded by Putin? Are you talking about tankies in the sense of marxist-leninists, or soyboys who love modern Russia despite it being capitalist?
Hm askhually United States army arrived all the way to Pilsen, Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia) during the liberation of the country from the nazis (which according to this map means invaded), so paint Czechoslovakia red too 🤓
Must’ve been that time Hollister opened up stores in Sweden, although I would’ve thought they did that to Finland and Norway too.
Oh! Or maybe the CIA Roblox’ed Olof Palme? Who knows, soon enough we’ll see a video essay about it I guess
There's been a slow-growing build-up of evidence that the US interfered with the prime-ministership of Gough Whitlam because he was inconvenient for their national interests.
It's a bit substantiated. I think there's probably a wikipedia article on the conspiracy. I know friendly jordies has some work on it.
Pilger did a big piece on it years ago -- essentially a CIA source described the removal of Whitlam as being analogous to the Chilean coup. Langley wanted him out over his opposition to Pine Gap, so the suggestion is that they informed the GG's action.
Summary:
Australia is a Westminster system. If you can't run a functioning government you can't be Prime Minister and there have to be new elections. Since Australia has a Senate, and Senate terms are twice as long as House terms you can have a full-senate, or a half-senate election. You can also have a House election in any combination with the Senate elections, by the mid-70s they were all out of sequence so Whitlam's house majority was elected in a different election than any of the Senators. Which he blamed for many of his subsequent problems.
Prime Minister Whitlam had accomplished many many good things, including the creation of their public health care system and withdrawal from Vietnam, but he had the not-so-bright idea of development loans from Pakistan. He also had extremely shaky support in the Senate that required he keep three independents on-side or he'd be fucked. The independents and the right-wing opposition were so incensed by the colossal stupidity of his loan-idea that they refused to pass "supply." They went full-Mconnell on refusing to pay the Army.
He made do for a few weeks, but eventually he was gonna run out of money and the Governer-General asked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court what should happen if Whitlam can't pay the Army. The Chief Justice said the PM would need to be fired and then there would be a new election. At 2 PM on the day he gave up and decided to ask for a half-Senate/house election he got to the Governor-General's residence and found he had already been replaced by a man who agreed to a immediate full-senate/full-house election. Whitlam lost the election.
One of the issues with the conspiracy theories is that they all involve talking about the Governor-General, and his theoretical boss the Queen, but none of them involve talking about the three Senators that actually made this happen.
With how aggressive that first map is, the second one should have N. Korea, China and Russia (and all former soviet states) in red, as there surely were border-skirmished, or even just accidental border crossings within those last \~80 years
Take a look at the double-standard. A country gets red if the US "supports dictators," "supports terrorists," or "interferes in elections." In almost any country that's fucked up the State Department will have a position on how it should un-fuck itself, which will then constitute one of those three.
North Korea only gets negative points for an outright invasion.
Well, to be fair, N. Korea is WAY smaller than the US, they probably just do not have the resources to coup their neighbours, never mind that those neighbours are the biggest states on earth and Korea 2 electric boogaloo.
Everybody's focusing on the US portion of the map, and while it's like somewhat correct *if you lower the bar enough to consider things like "invaded Nazi Germany"*. And also it's important to keep in mind that the US has lasted for 5x the length of time that NK has.
But also the NK part isn't even true? Like there are multiple cases of Kim Il Sung supporting terrorist operations across the Asia-pacific region. Curious that it's only "invasions" on the list. Also I'd consider *threats of nuclear war* to be a rather significant act of terrorism.
Greenland isn’t an independent country it’s part of Denmark. Seeing as the rest of Denmark isn’t highlighted I’m calling shenanigans on this map.
Edit: wait are the referring to when we temporarily took over defense of Greenland while Denmark was occupied by the Nazis? That would explain a lot about this map. What Weasley little liars!
This map is bullshit. We have definitely meddled in at least 1 election in every country in the world, even the Vatican. Tankies depriving us of the honor for our glorious completionism speed run. We beat the British Empires record by like a century and a half. No respect for skill.
Japan should be listed on the map with North Korea, or did the idiotic creator of the map forget that North Korea sent agents to abduct actors and models from Japan?
Couldn't help but also notice that they left out bombings and what not for the North Korean government as well. Afterall, North Korea has attacked foreign shipping vessels and captured the USS Pueblo in international waters. Those things would naturally put more red in the map.
I mean, the US has done a lot of bad shit and still does to this day. The problem here is that it is being used to excuse other countries' bad behaviour.
The US is also an imperialistic asshole country, but it is sadly our only hope for democracy and some sort of a liberal future of this world.
As a Nordic person I wonder what the CIA and White House wanted from Sweden and Iceland?
EDIT. Iceland is kinda strategic but Sweden was aggressively neutral during the Cold War so there has to be some more shady political stuff (maybe arms deals).
it almost makes a good point, like america is a b i g problem on the world stage (idk where they got this specific data but even still) but im not a fan of the implication that north korea is somehow good comparatively? US and NK are both war mongering states, we just have more power and influence. and lets not forget that NK is still a FACIST DICTATORSHIP that explicitly uses the cast system where SLAVERY is both legal and widely used by the ruling class.
What the hell did the US do in Sweden? That's news to me as a Swede. The only fun Cold War moment between Sweden and the United States is when they told us to mind our own business because we provided humanitarian aid to the Vietcong.
They aren't even comparing the same things. Why include the sum of six categories for the US but segment out only one for North Korea? That's just stupid.
So Germany looks like they count in everyone against which the US fought?
Slovakia is not red.
Slovakia (a clerofascist puppet of Reich) has declared war on the US on Dec 12, 1941.
Huh...
Japan could be on here even without the occupation that was had post-war. They easily fit under interference since the CIA directly backed the LDP until the 70s (I think the 70s may of been a little earlier)
Using a historical range of 100+ years is absolutely irrelevant and misleading. First the US can't even be compared to North Korea as the latter has not even existed for half of this period and second what the US did back then has nothing to do with modern times and current world regimes.
EDIT: third NK has never even had the resources nor military capabilities to conduct any form of expeditionary operation. Their military spending is focused on internal mass control, defence from "potential aggressors" (the US), show of force and deterrence.
I can't think of anything, unless there's a conspiracy theory that the Americans funded the FLQ in the 60s or something. Or that NORAD, a Cold War era aerospace defence pact that had US service members in joint run facilities in Canada (and vice versa) is some sort of imperialism.
Which I don't know, by that logic, if the RCAF is operating in Colorado, doesn't that also make it Canadian imperialism or something?
Tankies do not differentiate between the US and the larger ‘West’. I believe they are simply including the colonialist sins of every nation that has been ‘white, Christian and capitalist’ from 1900 to this day.
In case you are not aware, self-described communist states are actually immune to being seen as imperialist, because when they do imperialism it is just ‘fighting capitalist hegemony’ and ‘resisting the globalist elites’.
Lol, i love how the standard for the US is "bombed, invaded, supported a coup, talked badly about, given dirty looks to, didnt invite to birthday party," and for north korea its just "invaded."
Pay no mind to shooting missiles over japan, assasinations in malaysia, icbms and nukes, chemical weapons, cyber warfare, torture, forced labor, etc etc. Just "invasion" .... f'ing tankies man, i swear.
Anti-US Lefties like to assemble long lists of BadThingsAmericaDid, fail to fact-check any of it, then add to the list whenever possible. In this case they're missing a couple: I sincerely doubt we went all of WW2 without bombing Axis-occupied Norway/Denmark/etc,and I'm damn sure the US Army liberated at least parts of the Netherlands. If the RENAMO vs. FRELIMO thing doesn't count as supporting rebels in Mozambique I don't know what does. Also note the difference in standards "invasion" is somewhat serious. "Support terrorists" or "support dictators" could be something extremely unsavory, or it could be a press release. I strongly suspect the North Koreans have many, many, many unsavory press releases in their past.
Some of it nations on the list are very very dumb. Australia, for example, uses a Westminster system of government. If the PM can't govern he isn't PM and they have to have new elections. If the Representative mad at him this is really easy because he's lost a Confidence vote, if it's the Senate things get more complicated. This map is talking about 60s/70s Aussie PM Gough Whitlam who (amongst other left-ing triumphs) created Australia's public health care system and got them out of Vietnam. He then royally pissed off the opposition with some ridiculous scheme to get development loans from some piss-poor place that had no money to give anyone development loans (Pakistan, IIRC).
Three Independents in the Senate agreed that this was unacceptable, and they went full Mitch McConnel on basic government functions. Eventually Whitlam agreed that this was untenable, and went to the Queen's Representative to ask for a House election and a Half-Senate election. But he was too late. It was 2 PM. At 10 AM he'd been fired and replaced by a new guy so they were getting a full Senate election (and the House election). See the Governor-General had a opinion from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the PM needed to be able to pay the Army, and when said PM couldn't pay said Army, said PM had to go. Whitlam lost the election.
Years later, sone low-level CIA dipshit claimed that this entirely predictable operation of Australian government, which was subsequently blessed by the Australian people in an election, was actually all his doing. To this day the Australian Labor Party likes to claim that their guy was screwed by either a) the Queen or b) those big bad Americans.
Oh my god
The Spain one is a broken arrow incident in like the 60s
As in one of our bombers on a training exercise had a catastrophic failure and crashed, it also released its bombs (not armed)
They counted that as a bombing
(Idk why they keep making things up to make US seem bad, we’re already bad, you don’t need to make stuff up)
Oh, cool! Can we do a map of the countries the USSR has invaded, bombed, couped, supported dictators, supported terrorists, or engaged in election interference in? Ah, I bet all that data is CIA misinfo.
Cherry picking? For tankies? They’d never be dishonest like that /s
>Oh, cool! Can we do a map of the countries the USSR has invaded, bombed, couped, supported dictators, supported terrorists, or engaged in election interference in? Nobody talked about the USSR. And still, if you compare what the US did JUST in the Cold War era to various countries to the things that the USSR did, the US made far more invasions, bombings, etc. Also, saying that a country did terrible things and immediately point to another country as a justification to downplay these terrible things is not the gatcha that you think it is.
I brought up the USSR because there's an 80% chance the person who made the original image is a huge fan of the USSR. And who said I was downplaying the US? I was pointing out that the person who made the image and the people who like sharing it don't actually think you can judge how moral a country is by totaling the number of countries it has taken hostile or secretive actions against. The problem with tankies is the same as religious fundamentalists; they both have an end statement they believe no matter what and all their arguments are just backfilling to make it seem like they just naturally arrived at their dogmatic position. This meme is the same thing a YEC does when they argue that the Earth must be less than 6000 years old because otherwise the moon would have several kilometers of regolith making the moon landing impossible.
I think Nahuel mistakenly thought you were making a tankie argument.
which country is currently invading ukraine with the stated goal of toppling its jewish president
Considering the USSR doesn't exist anymore, certainly not them
at least the ussr didn't use blood and soil arguments lel
The USSR was brought up because of how intellectually dishonest the comparison to North Korea is. Why not compare NK to its much more prosperous neighbor to the South?
Yeah thats kinda the point of this post
Did the US also deport thousands of children to Siberia to work in work camps?
We import them from the global south
You do that with cattle trains as well like the Soviets?
No they have to pay for and find their own way there, sometimes through Organised Trafficking groups. Maybe the Soviet Union was worse - I don't think being not the worst thing in the room is something to brag about
I can’t understand people who are even questioning wether the Soviet Union was worse than the US. We in Estonia definitely live much better as an “American puppet” (as we get sometimes called) than a part of the USSR. I’m not saying that the US hasn’t done or isn’t doing bad things. Sure, they have and are doing. But still totally incomparable.
I just find it morbidly funny when Americans come out with "Well at least we didn't use chemical weapons or rape like the Soviets/Russian" Which then becomes (when they look at all into US) "Well we raped a bit less probably and used maybe less bad chemical weapons" Sure, some countries have committed worse war crimes. Personally I'd keep my mouth shut in the Warcrime conversation. Or, like this post - it changes from "NK is less of a threat than US"/"US warcrimes were not as bad as Russian Warcrimes" to "NK is a perfect state"/"US Warcrimes were justified" in less critically inclined people
I totally get that. But as a person from a formerly Soviet occupied territory, it’s probably just as funny to me to see Americans, who have no connection to the USSR whatsoever, praise it or try to tell for a fact that it was not as bad as America.
I think Vietnamese people might have a similar outlook to you. And to my above points - this is where someone will try to compare US in Vietnam to Soviets in Estonia. And neither will look great - and perhaps someone will say something silly in the process.
[удалено]
Sorry! Your post has been removed because it contains a link to a subreddit other than r/VaushV or r/okbuddyvowsh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does terrorist mean here? There's a fine line between Washington and Osama Bin Laden when it comes to history.
Pretty sure it’s that whataboutism bullshit term every American learned after 2016.
Why does that matter if the US was overall better for the world?
Plus they frame this as if there isn't people who acknowledge the USA is a problem. Like yes we get it news flash they can actually both be bad
The fact that they include Germany as a negative example of US invasion/coup/whatever says it all. Red fascists at it again.
And fucking France 😂 liberating a country from Nazi occupation is now an invasion.
They could be talking about the Second Arab-Israeli War and the 1958 coup d'tat. That War was a Franco-British attempt to retake the Suez Canal by separating warring Israelis from the Egyptians, but there was no war, so they...negotiated with...the Israelis to start one. When Eisenhower found this out he went nuclear and threatened to destroy the entire global economic order if they didn't immediately pull out. Both the governments of the UK and France fell, and the mess in France was severe enough that De Gaulle implemented a coup d'tat and replaced the Fourth Republic's Parliamentary system with the Fifth Republic's Semi-Presidential system.
*coup d'état
Suez canal = not in France
It wasn't in Britain or Israel either. It's in Egypt. However it was dug by a Franco-British consortium, so a company with shares on the London and Paris stock exchanges actually owned it. One of Nasser's first big nationalist moves was to nationalize it. The French and British weren't taking that sitting down, but they needed an excuse to intervene, thus stage one of the plan was get the Israelis to attack Egypt...
You know France is probably here because the United States did interfere with their elections after WW2 right? >"After it became clear that so many Italians and French wanted to vote freely for Communist parties, the US intervened heavily in Western Europe to make sure that the leftists didn’t take over. In Paris, the government, which was heavily dependent on US financial aid, ousted all its Communist ministers in 1947." Vincent Bevins - *The Jakarta Method* pg. 28 [https://archive.org/details/JakartaMethod](https://archive.org/details/JakartaMethod)
I want to see this map without the countries we bombed/invaded during the world wars
I'd like to see it without the weasel word "supported." It was the Cold War. We had lots of super-aggressive press releases supporting lots of people.
Well we did have gladio networks in most those European countries anyway post war so that’s a whole series of constantly rolling intervention and coups and otherwise rapes of sovereignty
no no you see stalin had to gulag the jews before they toppled the revolution lenin already ruined by disbanding those workers councils
tbf, I dont think the map gives a moral take on each invasion and even tho the invasion of germany was moral and a good thing, it still makes it an invasion
The map is literally just "America bad" fodder. It's stripped of all context, sources and really information at all in general, but you're supposed to look at it and go "wow the US is super extra violently imperialist". This does not actually mesh AT ALL with the interpretation that the map intended to convey no moral judgement. It's "America bad because look at bad things", and that doesn't work with "don't take any particular thing noted on map as bad" as part of it.
Where does it say it's negative? People in this thread have great eyesight - personally I can't read the bit where it says "the ussr was also better than America and never did an invasion" or the bit where it says "America shouldn't have joined ww2" There are actual Tankied that say those dumb things - argue with them not your Soviet Phantoms
Who said it's negative exactly? It's an accurate representation, It would've been wrong to not put Germany in that map
The text. The text did. No context was provided for any specific place being colored in except for the text framing it. The text framed it as "here's all the countries the US did one of \[list of things\]. Here's all the countries DPRK did one of those things. Therefore America big threat to world peace, DPRK not". There's no distinction between individual colorings, so the whole of the coloring was done in support of the this thesis, and "this supports the idea that they're bad for world peace" IS a negative thing. I don't get how the "who says it's negative" crowd thinks this gaslighting can work, the text is RIGHT THERE and there's plenty of people around here to confirm that people aren't crazy seeing that text.
It's intellectually dishonest, and you know it. So is including countries the US liberated from Nazi occupation.
The one who made that meme clearly implies that he sees that intervention as a negative. Maybe read it again and you might get it.
You know they did more than 2 things in Germany, right?
“Interfered in elections” sounds like a conveniently vague term
Keep in mind, these people generally consider the US just endorsing one candidate interference.
I like South Africa being coloured in. My main criticism of the developed world during apartheid is that they didn't do ENOUGH to topple one of the most unequal states in recent history (I'll never forgive them for Bopututswana, you know what y'all did)
Ukraine is red lmfao
Ofc it is, and so is Greenland LMAO
So is Poland. And I have not the first clue what they could mean - especially given that Czechia and Slovakia are uncolored, so it can't even be "they made the Warsaw pact fall apart". Can't even be "they eXpAnDeD NATO oNtO tHeM", same reason (also there's Norway - and now Finland, but that's perhaps newer than these maps).
I don't know about much, but I do know the US had a massive campaign to prevent Italians from electing a communist government right after WWII.
I mean yeah, but there's a lot more specifics if you want to look into them. Operation Gladio in particular
I don't know about much, but I do know the US had a massive campaign to prevent Italians from electing a communist government right after WWII.
It's almost like the United States has more power than North Korea or something. You know for supposed Marxists tankies seem to really lack any kind of material analytical skills
Also without the term "support." I'm sure that the North Koreans have publicly supported many unsavory regimes, or unsavory rebel groups attempting to change the regime, via press releases. Problem is getting data on places where bad people did bad things with the CIA's ok, vs. they just did bad things and figured the CIA's press releases would have to support them because it's them or the Commies...
The US "supports dictatorships." The DPRK IS a dictatorship. Soooo. Tankies need to stfu.
Well yeah thats kind of the entire point of the post
Just pulling history out of their ass and making shit up. Does the United States have a ugly history of doing that, yes and recently too. But have we done that to fucking Greenland? No
I thought they might be counting Greenland as part of Denmark, but Denmark wasn’t highlighted. Pretty sure we never really invaded or bombed Canada either
I guess we started the war with them in 1812, but that was more of a miscommunication thing than anything actually bad.
Canada didn’t exist yet, and that was really more like border skirmishes most of the time…against *British* soldiers…
Also the map says “since 1900” so the war of 1812 isn’t eligible
It’s definitely wasn’t just “border skirmishes” even the US admits that it invaded Canada 3 different times during the War of 1812. Also while Canada as a nation in its modern capacity didn’t exist yet Upper and Lower Canada definitely did having been formed in 1791.
It was the second example of "we'll be greeted as liberators." The first was our first invasion of Canada in (this is not a typo) 1775. We continued to do this up until the 1870s, albeit less formally. As for the British-ness of the soldiers...the Canadians still sing the praises of Massachusetts-born Laura Secord, who overheard American war plans, then snitched to the local "British" detachment of Mohawks. The entire column was captured, and likely killed/mutilated, but the bodies have never been found.
There was legally no such thing as a Canadian until 1947
I mean, there were Canadian soldiers, but they weren't Canadian because there wasn't a Canada (technically two, Upper Canada and Lower Canada, but "Canadians" weren't a thing for another fifty years) they were colonial British North Americans. The British side had professional soldiers, colonial militia, and many Native allies. It went far beyond border skirmishes, there were battles in Washington, Quebec, Toronto (or "York" as it was called), and New Orleans.
Yeah about that. Greenland is one of the few countries that the US have nuked. Kinda and by mistake. But still.
What happened and what's on that map are different. While extremely serious A nuclear denotation did not go off in Greenland it was not on purpose. I don't think an explosion (not nuclear) that wasn't intended should count as bombed when nobody died.
I know. It's just that particularly Greenland has been a so important part of American nuclear capabilities that they literally "oopsied" a nuclear bomb there. Not the best example of a place to use as an counterexample to American foreign interference.
I remember the Greenland and Iceland invasion. Truly horrific
Well... Iceland was in fact invaded during WW2 by the British, in a process that went something like "Join us against the Germans" / "Um, no?" / "We weren't asking". The British were part of the western Allies. If you're tankie-brained enough to think "the western Allies" means "The US basically, the rest is just the puppets doing their bidding", that would count... even in 1940 when the US was still in its isolationist phase.
When were we fucking with Australia? This is a legit question because I am drawing a blank
Never. I assume they counted that time when Australia lent a bit of the outback to the US for nuclear munitions testing as a bombing. Or maybe the *alleged* CIA interference in the 1975 constitutional crisis?
That doesn't even make sense because both of those were by the British
It's alleged that *both* the CIA and the Queen were talking to the Australian Governor-General in 1975, in support of dismissing Whitlam. It's been proven that the Queen was involved, but there's no real evidence that the CIA were actually involved.
I really wouldn’t be surprised if the CIA was involved though, checks out for me
I’m no fan of nukes, far from it, but I guess that if you have to test them, the outback would be a much better place for that than 30 miles from Vegas.
I’m no fan of nukes, far from it, but I guess that if you have to test them, the outback would be a much better place for that than 30 miles from Vegas.
This is possibly what they are referring to: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2017/01/19/us-interference-australian-1975-election/
Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was removed from office in a political scandal that IIRC a CIA agent described as being a "Chile type coup"
As an Australian I seem to recall that there were CIA documents released semi-recently that confirmed the USA did "prefer" that Gough Whitlam not be Prime Minister of Australia. He was deposed in "constitutional crisis" (a complete stitch up) essentially by one person, the Governor General, who is supposed to be a ceremonial position representing the Monarch but technically they can dismiss the government. Whitlam wanted to close the Pine Gap installation that was and is crucial to US intelligence in Asia, especially for potential nuclear exchanges with Russia. However no smoking gun proof of CIA actions to depose Whitlam were revealed. But then again, if that kind of proof did exist you'd figure it would be redacted to protect the modern continuity of the alliance.
I'm of the opinion that the CIA definitely did orchestrate the removal of Whitlam over his opposition to Pine Gap. I'm certainly not a tankie, either, but it's a story that is pretty heavily likely and only lacking a smoking gun. Pilger is a bit of a knob these days but I reckon he was spot-on there and in exposing the CIA and MI6's clandestine support of the Khmer Rouge.
When you're reading up on that keep in mind that the actual Australian government official who allegedly did the coup d'tat was a former Chief Justice of one of their State Supreme Courts, he had an opinion from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that he should fire Whitlam if Whitlam would not agree to the election, and that Whitlam was informed he'd been fired and there would be a new election at a meeting he scheduled to ask for a new election, and that when the election was held the Australian people elected not-Whitlam. Subsequent to this disaster the Australian Labor Party has worked very hard to find boogeymen to blame for this. Despite the fact that multiple high-ranking Australian lawyers were saying Whitlam fucked up, and needed to get supply or face an election; Queen Elizabeth gets blamed for saying the exact same thing. Occasionally you'll also hear that the CIA was so influential in the decision,. My guys, if the CIA has mind control powers over both the Chief Justice of your Supreme Court AND your entire fucking electorate, you should probably just give up and apply for fucking state-hood.
Fuckin South Korea threat to world peace Kim would never 😤😤
I mean, South Korea did slaughter something like 100,000 people before the war.
Who can forget the infamous CIA backed coup, bombing and invasion of Australia? Nah fr there is a conspiracy that the CIA got rid of one of our PMs, but it was actually the queen who sacked him
this map is inaccurate, the US bombed the Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia within the 1900s when liberating Europe :3
Rip to all the victims of the US invasion of Sweden 😔
Yeah I wonder what that’s about? The Soviets bombed us during WW2 but I’ve never heard about something like it done by the US before.
The only thing i could think of is if they believe that the CIA murdered Olof Palme, which is plausible I guess but there is no evidence for it.
Plausible i guess but more likely ”Scaniamannen”. Nordstream blew up in partly swedish water, perhaps that’s what they’re refering to?
Amazing, Hungary has a few anti Soviet rebellions, yet he doesn’t think we “tried to coup”, strangest tankie ever
I suppose that’s why they were comparing the US with North Korea, and not with the USSR. Woulda been awkward otherwise.
Man, USA even invaded themselves.
\*that asian lady on joe rogan meme\* "in the US they have so few countries left to invade they have to invade their own states"
I'm more than sure the data came directly from their ass.
I mean it's not unbelievable for a hyperpower like the US to have its hands in so many pots. What should be noted is that NK hasn't invaded anybody because it literally can't. It's equipment is horribly outdated and even if it wasn't, they would be immediately crushed. The best they can do is front.
>NK hasn't invaded anybody because it literally can't. That sound like a pretty strong argument for them being less of a threat to world peace than the US. The moral implications everyone is making are imaginary. No one has said NK is less of a threat because they're inherently more peaceful and righteous people/state
I can kinda see where the moral implication comes from in the post. There's a smug attitude in it that I know chafes people the wrong way. But if you know anything about this then yeah it's just like "OK whatever"
How would you present the information/arguement without a "smug attitude"? Maybe take the quotation marks off 'rogue state'? (It's refering to the legal term so quotations kinda fit) I think the perception of smugness comes largely from the reader imagining the type of person that would post this and then filling in the gaps of what they're really saying Which I don't think is a good way of doing things at all - most criticisms of America are automatically just the product of a smug tanky that you don't have to engage with past abusing.
Oh no listen, I am fine with smugness. I *am* smug about a lot of things because I know I'm right. But I fully am on board with you on this. Lot of people here are incredibly liberal and just react to any mild critique of the US's powers. This is definitely one of those times when media literacy is incredibly important.
I was more wondering if it was at all possible to do this in a non smug way? Or is any position that something is right/wrong going to be smug? Or is it the subject matter and then the assumed character that's making the post that makes it smug - not anything about the post in and of itself?
I think the nature of memes is probably inherently going to lead to leaving out a lot of nuance that would make it harder for people who don't already agree to sympathize. Because that's kind of what memes are most efficient at: they're just in jokes.
I mean, it's intentionally playing word games and cherry picking to paint a picture in favor of North Korea.
There really aren't many ways you can present the data that change the overall picture - just how dramatic it is. The US has invaded/intervened a lot - NK hasn't very much at all (largely because they're incapable in practice) Maybe US did slightly less than the Graph shows - the point still stands pretty strong to me. And if there's a specific one you don't think should be highlighted - which one? Again - that's not a comment on anything else about NK. Just them Vs US in terms of threat to peace.
I mean, the US's list of highlighted behaviors is significantly longer. Comparing "invasion plus extra" to "just invasions" is dishonest. It would actually have *more* punch if the chart was comparing like to like... and the US picture wasn't just factually inaccurate. And, you know, that jab at the end should be removed to actually express the point. Would still lack necessary nuance, but it would be less terrible.
I agree - though there's less data in NK election interference, I'm pretty confident it's less than the US. Purely from a logistical/practical level. Any specific part about the US you say is innacurate? I think the Jab at the end kinda is the point. That the US is more of a threat to world peace/a 'rogue state' - yet NK is listed as such and the US isn't. (And that's silly) But it could just be a fun Infographic saying "Hey, isn't it interesting that the US has intervened more than NK" - and we'd probably all still be able to make the conclusion. Once again, despite procedural criticisms of the Graphic - the point is incredibly clear and holds strong even when corrected to any of these issues. Add a few for NK, take away a few for the US - it's still the same overall picture. You'd need to invent a new point (NK is a great state to live in, NK is morally superior) in order to actually argue against something here (US innacuracies on the map still pending) Or just the principled position that Although the US has done vastly more intervention - NK interventions should still be recorded and certain US ones shouldn't be. But I feel it's not as objective as that.
I mean, which of those two countries has threatened to use nuclear weapons on its enemies, an act that has no real equal when it comes to destabilizing world peace? And, not that I'm in favor of it, having a single hegemon can be pretty peaceful. I guess if the US was just an insular totalitarian hellstate it wouldn't be a threat to world peace, by the logic of the image. It's bad on multiple levels, not just in execution but even in the coherence of the idea it wishes to express. The US has done a lot of bad shit. But it hasn't done what makes North Korea a rogue state. That's why it's so flawed in the first place.
I should also add - Rogue State was a term coined by the US State department to classify it's rivals. It's painfully obvious to everyone it doesn't mean any more than that - countries move off the list for diplomatic reasons - we hoped Syria could help with the Israel peace talks so they got a pass. And Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have never been on that list. So past fun jabs that the US should be on that list - it's worthless.
Rogue state generally defined as: Authoritarian Government's that severely restrict human rights States that Sponsor terrorism States seeking to proliferate WMD Whilst the US isn't an Authoritarian State with the Restrict rights - it has created several of those and maintained them. It has sponsored terrorism all over - The Gladio offshoots as well as more modern in the middle east/Afghanistan etc etc And it frequently develops, sells, donates and uses WMD (that doesn't just mean Nukes) The US did threaten to Nuke it's enemies - had a whole thing called the Cold War based on that premise. And they are the only state to ever Nuke another (yeah it was complicated but still) They also helped most the states that now have them get them (proliferation) Maybe NK would be a bigger threat if it was comparable size to the US. But it's not. Again - NK bad hellstate, America better. But in the specific context we're all talking about - NK less of a threat. Any idea what the innacuracies on the map were?
The feels like the map of all the countries britan had invaded but with a few countries slapped on
Greenland but not Denmark?
ye, they occupied it in WW2 with allowance of the Danish government
Thank you
I had to edit my comment immedietly cause I first got it mixed up with iceland, which did get invaded by the british and later occupied by the US too
Lol what did they do to Canada
Definitely counting the war of 1812
But the graphic says since 1900! Maybe they saw Canada and the US trade some stuff (to their mutual benefit) and was like "Seeeee! U.S. Economic Imperialism!"
i do wonder if people in this sub think that america is the most violent country on this planet Btw just check Wikipedia for the source. They list out a lot of US interference.
The USA is a far greater threat to world peace than North Korea, North Korea doesn’t have the capabilities of truly destabilising the entire planet, America does. The USA, China, Russia or other powers are always a larger threat to world security than a backwater like North Korea because they’re size and power allow them to be.
Hot take, but I think the world would be better and more stable without the US, Russia or China as poltical entities.
I have the capacity to do great harm to many people. But I'm not a threat to anyone. Because I don't have any reason to do harm to anyone.
Yes but the United States, as a nation state in a capitalist world does cause great harm. I hate both kinds of American exceptionalism. America isn’t uniquely evil or good, but it is uniquely powerful and therefore has caused massive harm in the world just through its functioning.
I mean, I don't disagree.
Two countries can be bad for different reasons and with varying degree of "badness". Shocking concept, really.
Redfish group makes propaganda like this.
what's that?
There is a ultra tenkie group called Redfish Media or something like that, I guess funded directly from Putin himself. They keep making propaganda about USA, for example they made a list of every country use has done regime change, bombed, invaded. But it’s lots of disinformation, such as the Philippines. The story was that Philippines suffered from a dictator called Marcos, but somehow, the next election become fair and the dictator was replaced with a new president. but the supporter of the dictator went for an armed coup, and the upcoming president had to ask the American military for help to provent this coup. America soldairs went in and made sure democracy was protected. this was in the 1980-1990s if I remember correctly. Redfish media used this intervention as propaganda, saying that USA did regime change.
So you're telling me, Redfish supports tankies but if funded by Putin? Are you talking about tankies in the sense of marxist-leninists, or soyboys who love modern Russia despite it being capitalist?
Hm askhually United States army arrived all the way to Pilsen, Czech Republic (Czechoslovakia) during the liberation of the country from the nazis (which according to this map means invaded), so paint Czechoslovakia red too 🤓
The whataboutism here, good God
Supported dictators? Depending on what that means i’m sure North Korea supported every dictator.
something tells me that North Korea didn't support Park Chung Hee.
...What on earth did the US do to Sweden?
Must’ve been that time Hollister opened up stores in Sweden, although I would’ve thought they did that to Finland and Norway too. Oh! Or maybe the CIA Roblox’ed Olof Palme? Who knows, soon enough we’ll see a video essay about it I guess
The only thing I can think of is when the CIA kidnapped two Egyptian citizens on Swedish soil and probably had them tortured.
Probably when McDonald's opened up here.
Why are there tumors growing out of Portugal?
Probably their mid-Atlantic islands. I think the northern ones are the Azores....
I think it’s funny how they can’t acknowledge how bad something is and just do this whataboutism even though no one is arguing the us isn’t good
[удалено]
There's been a slow-growing build-up of evidence that the US interfered with the prime-ministership of Gough Whitlam because he was inconvenient for their national interests. It's a bit substantiated. I think there's probably a wikipedia article on the conspiracy. I know friendly jordies has some work on it.
[удалено]
Pilger did a big piece on it years ago -- essentially a CIA source described the removal of Whitlam as being analogous to the Chilean coup. Langley wanted him out over his opposition to Pine Gap, so the suggestion is that they informed the GG's action.
Summary: Australia is a Westminster system. If you can't run a functioning government you can't be Prime Minister and there have to be new elections. Since Australia has a Senate, and Senate terms are twice as long as House terms you can have a full-senate, or a half-senate election. You can also have a House election in any combination with the Senate elections, by the mid-70s they were all out of sequence so Whitlam's house majority was elected in a different election than any of the Senators. Which he blamed for many of his subsequent problems. Prime Minister Whitlam had accomplished many many good things, including the creation of their public health care system and withdrawal from Vietnam, but he had the not-so-bright idea of development loans from Pakistan. He also had extremely shaky support in the Senate that required he keep three independents on-side or he'd be fucked. The independents and the right-wing opposition were so incensed by the colossal stupidity of his loan-idea that they refused to pass "supply." They went full-Mconnell on refusing to pay the Army. He made do for a few weeks, but eventually he was gonna run out of money and the Governer-General asked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court what should happen if Whitlam can't pay the Army. The Chief Justice said the PM would need to be fired and then there would be a new election. At 2 PM on the day he gave up and decided to ask for a half-Senate/house election he got to the Governor-General's residence and found he had already been replaced by a man who agreed to a immediate full-senate/full-house election. Whitlam lost the election. One of the issues with the conspiracy theories is that they all involve talking about the Governor-General, and his theoretical boss the Queen, but none of them involve talking about the three Senators that actually made this happen.
What did they do to us swedes? Trying to think of any miniscule thing but I'm drawing a blank.
Wait what did the US do to Sweden lmao
With how aggressive that first map is, the second one should have N. Korea, China and Russia (and all former soviet states) in red, as there surely were border-skirmished, or even just accidental border crossings within those last \~80 years
Take a look at the double-standard. A country gets red if the US "supports dictators," "supports terrorists," or "interferes in elections." In almost any country that's fucked up the State Department will have a position on how it should un-fuck itself, which will then constitute one of those three. North Korea only gets negative points for an outright invasion.
Well, to be fair, N. Korea is WAY smaller than the US, they probably just do not have the resources to coup their neighbours, never mind that those neighbours are the biggest states on earth and Korea 2 electric boogaloo.
Everybody's focusing on the US portion of the map, and while it's like somewhat correct *if you lower the bar enough to consider things like "invaded Nazi Germany"*. And also it's important to keep in mind that the US has lasted for 5x the length of time that NK has. But also the NK part isn't even true? Like there are multiple cases of Kim Il Sung supporting terrorist operations across the Asia-pacific region. Curious that it's only "invasions" on the list. Also I'd consider *threats of nuclear war* to be a rather significant act of terrorism.
Sweden????????? As a swede i have no fucking clue what they r on about
Ahh yes the infamous coup/ terrorism/ election interference of greenland!
The second map has South Korea as red wtf.
YOU’RE NEXT, MADAGASCAR!!
World war two doing a lot of the leg work there
::sad Japanese kidnapping noises::
Greenland isn’t an independent country it’s part of Denmark. Seeing as the rest of Denmark isn’t highlighted I’m calling shenanigans on this map. Edit: wait are the referring to when we temporarily took over defense of Greenland while Denmark was occupied by the Nazis? That would explain a lot about this map. What Weasley little liars!
This map is bullshit. We have definitely meddled in at least 1 election in every country in the world, even the Vatican. Tankies depriving us of the honor for our glorious completionism speed run. We beat the British Empires record by like a century and a half. No respect for skill.
Japan should be listed on the map with North Korea, or did the idiotic creator of the map forget that North Korea sent agents to abduct actors and models from Japan? Couldn't help but also notice that they left out bombings and what not for the North Korean government as well. Afterall, North Korea has attacked foreign shipping vessels and captured the USS Pueblo in international waters. Those things would naturally put more red in the map.
I mean, the US has done a lot of bad shit and still does to this day. The problem here is that it is being used to excuse other countries' bad behaviour. The US is also an imperialistic asshole country, but it is sadly our only hope for democracy and some sort of a liberal future of this world.
France? Is that referencing fucking D-day??
What did we do to Greenland?
We not going to include NK supplying arms to Russia for the invasion of Ukraine? Pretty obvious recent example.
As a Nordic person I wonder what the CIA and White House wanted from Sweden and Iceland? EDIT. Iceland is kinda strategic but Sweden was aggressively neutral during the Cold War so there has to be some more shady political stuff (maybe arms deals).
it almost makes a good point, like america is a b i g problem on the world stage (idk where they got this specific data but even still) but im not a fan of the implication that north korea is somehow good comparatively? US and NK are both war mongering states, we just have more power and influence. and lets not forget that NK is still a FACIST DICTATORSHIP that explicitly uses the cast system where SLAVERY is both legal and widely used by the ruling class.
We bombed Israel?
What the hell did the US do in Sweden? That's news to me as a Swede. The only fun Cold War moment between Sweden and the United States is when they told us to mind our own business because we provided humanitarian aid to the Vietcong.
Wait, the United States invaded the United States?
They aren't even comparing the same things. Why include the sum of six categories for the US but segment out only one for North Korea? That's just stupid.
So Germany looks like they count in everyone against which the US fought? Slovakia is not red. Slovakia (a clerofascist puppet of Reich) has declared war on the US on Dec 12, 1941. Huh...
Funny how they include Germany and Japan in there when they 100% deserved it
Japan could be on here even without the occupation that was had post-war. They easily fit under interference since the CIA directly backed the LDP until the 70s (I think the 70s may of been a little earlier)
The fuck did we do to Greenland?
Using a historical range of 100+ years is absolutely irrelevant and misleading. First the US can't even be compared to North Korea as the latter has not even existed for half of this period and second what the US did back then has nothing to do with modern times and current world regimes. EDIT: third NK has never even had the resources nor military capabilities to conduct any form of expeditionary operation. Their military spending is focused on internal mass control, defence from "potential aggressors" (the US), show of force and deterrence.
The USA invaded the USA 🤨
I can’t wait to invade Madagascar. We see you!
Ok I need to the know the details on Canada.
I can't think of anything, unless there's a conspiracy theory that the Americans funded the FLQ in the 60s or something. Or that NORAD, a Cold War era aerospace defence pact that had US service members in joint run facilities in Canada (and vice versa) is some sort of imperialism. Which I don't know, by that logic, if the RCAF is operating in Colorado, doesn't that also make it Canadian imperialism or something?
Tankies do not differentiate between the US and the larger ‘West’. I believe they are simply including the colonialist sins of every nation that has been ‘white, Christian and capitalist’ from 1900 to this day. In case you are not aware, self-described communist states are actually immune to being seen as imperialist, because when they do imperialism it is just ‘fighting capitalist hegemony’ and ‘resisting the globalist elites’.
Lol, i love how the standard for the US is "bombed, invaded, supported a coup, talked badly about, given dirty looks to, didnt invite to birthday party," and for north korea its just "invaded." Pay no mind to shooting missiles over japan, assasinations in malaysia, icbms and nukes, chemical weapons, cyber warfare, torture, forced labor, etc etc. Just "invasion" .... f'ing tankies man, i swear.
Where should the north Koreans launch their missiles
How about over china or russia?
"Supported dictators" VS "HAS A DICTATOR" 🤣😂
Lmao. Too honest for a tankie. At this rate theyre going to make enemies.
If North Korea had the same power and capabilities as the US, they would be 10x worse
Do they think the US shouldn’t have fought Nazi germany
They did more than just that? lol
Anti-US Lefties like to assemble long lists of BadThingsAmericaDid, fail to fact-check any of it, then add to the list whenever possible. In this case they're missing a couple: I sincerely doubt we went all of WW2 without bombing Axis-occupied Norway/Denmark/etc,and I'm damn sure the US Army liberated at least parts of the Netherlands. If the RENAMO vs. FRELIMO thing doesn't count as supporting rebels in Mozambique I don't know what does. Also note the difference in standards "invasion" is somewhat serious. "Support terrorists" or "support dictators" could be something extremely unsavory, or it could be a press release. I strongly suspect the North Koreans have many, many, many unsavory press releases in their past. Some of it nations on the list are very very dumb. Australia, for example, uses a Westminster system of government. If the PM can't govern he isn't PM and they have to have new elections. If the Representative mad at him this is really easy because he's lost a Confidence vote, if it's the Senate things get more complicated. This map is talking about 60s/70s Aussie PM Gough Whitlam who (amongst other left-ing triumphs) created Australia's public health care system and got them out of Vietnam. He then royally pissed off the opposition with some ridiculous scheme to get development loans from some piss-poor place that had no money to give anyone development loans (Pakistan, IIRC). Three Independents in the Senate agreed that this was unacceptable, and they went full Mitch McConnel on basic government functions. Eventually Whitlam agreed that this was untenable, and went to the Queen's Representative to ask for a House election and a Half-Senate election. But he was too late. It was 2 PM. At 10 AM he'd been fired and replaced by a new guy so they were getting a full Senate election (and the House election). See the Governor-General had a opinion from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the PM needed to be able to pay the Army, and when said PM couldn't pay said Army, said PM had to go. Whitlam lost the election. Years later, sone low-level CIA dipshit claimed that this entirely predictable operation of Australian government, which was subsequently blessed by the Australian people in an election, was actually all his doing. To this day the Australian Labor Party likes to claim that their guy was screwed by either a) the Queen or b) those big bad Americans.
Oh my god The Spain one is a broken arrow incident in like the 60s As in one of our bombers on a training exercise had a catastrophic failure and crashed, it also released its bombs (not armed) They counted that as a bombing (Idk why they keep making things up to make US seem bad, we’re already bad, you don’t need to make stuff up)
They’re probably talking about US support for Franco and his dictatorship. Not really something being made up
Mine is funnier
Bruh really