And then of course a few years later the UK went and fucking did it again to them. Don't you know its bad to go sink the navies of neutral countries?
See: Section VII. When the USA has a network of clandestine bunkers built, to hold behind the enemy lines and kill any collaborators with specialised weaponry. Once I see the National Guard of Ohio start training dinner ladies to garrot Senators, then we can talk about comparing the two. Britain's plan was to pull a permanent Warsaw Uprising. The UK was facing the prospect of invasion. It's why it's
only the most faggy, whiny Pajeets and their American sycophants who try to complain about British misconduct in the war.
Ask the Russians about British misconduct, and they'll say we should have killed
more. I agree with Enoch Powell, in that the worst effect of the Second World War was allowing the USA to enter world politics. Never has so much been taken, by people who have given less to gain more.
By the time that happened, children were evacuated from the capital because of the intensity of the strikes against the mainland. 70,000 Brits had died during these bombings - they weren't a minor affair. It's a
rational response to invasion, to do anything to prevent said invasion. Autistic screeching about the strategic bombing campaign would make more sense, if it was a one-way affair. It was not.
The UK also built an arsenal of anthrax so potent that it completely destroyed one of the outer Scottish islands - it was uninhabitable for fifty years.
China, during the Korean War, was facing the same prospect - hence their involvement. Chinese civilians were killed by the USA, as a direct result of the bioweapons.
Did you know that? Did you know that the USA released bioweapons and massacred Chinese civilians?
What about the Philippine-American War after the Spanish one? That's rarely talked about and US did worse shit, even bloodier than the Spanish-American War.
All I know about that one is that the .45ACP cartridge and the 1911 was the result of it. For that, it's more forgivable. The Philippines came when the USA was a minor power, during the colonial era - their enemies were more brutal than they were, and fell into the real core of colonialism - "Why can a group of inbred paedophiles and cannibals claim such beautiful land, all for themselves? God made all men equal, so we can fight over it" - it's an honest conquest.
Korea is the one where it stinks - the entire situation just leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The fags, in this very thread, who think that McDonald's is a more appealing prospect than the state run by a literal war hero. North Korea, unironically, was the superior option for the peninsula - and the USA/SK killed hundreds of thousands of South Koreans to make sure they ruled it.
The Joe Stalin boomer man is correct, North Korea was the industrial and power hub of the country, while the South was chiefly agrarian - but under what justification can you demand a country depose its war-hero leader, split it in half and remove its farming ability, then practically sterilise the farming half (lowest birthrate on
Earth in SK) - that doesn't seem like a victory for anyone. The entire Korean war is simply a nation being abused by an invading and extremely foreign country keen on "nation-building" while the nation's neighbours try to help.
Kim Jong Un's grandson can live in the deserted ruins of Seoul's megamalls, once the last citizens die of old age. The disgraceful conduct comes to the Koreans being, apparently, not permitted to make their own choices. They weren't ideological Communists - Kim Il Sung didn't come into power via hypnosis and the "Red Magic" - he was in power because he was
the most dangerous Korean partisan. Kim Il-Sung was the Asian equivalent of Tito - the wild-man who saved his country from foreign invasion. People didn't follow him because of his ideology - they followed him because when all the big names ran away to safety, he stayed behind and fought.
The American paranoia and lack of general positive culture forget this critical fact about almost all of the "communist dictators" - they were soldiers. All of them. Chairman Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Josef Stalin, all the big names had their start in fighting. There's no equivalent for Americans, who haven't fought any actual war, but trying to depose a bad ideology when its representatives are stronger, braver and better than anything you can provide is a fucking retarded thing to do. The USSR knew this and went out of its way to kill off Eastern European war heroes, including their own, out of fear that they could topple the regime.
There's a reason South Korea outlaws any kind of North Korean propaganda. It's not because of "le Communism bad" - North Korea would still be banned even if they denounced Communism as a poor system of government. The truth is that the North Koreans are more Korean than the South. It's a hard thing to describe to people who genuinely believe that nation-states are imaginary, and that the only system of government ought to be "shuffling a dementia patient from room-to-room to sign documents" but it's something
most actual nations can understand.
It's an artificial government, propped up by a money printer. South Korea might, yet, still depend on the North in the future - if America falls like the USSR did, then it would be North Koreans feeding the South. And the thing is, the biggest propaganda point for North Korea in the future would be this:
The South, by comparison, has gone from strength to strength. Whatever they don't produce enough of for people to eat, they can easily purchase from abroad. The North cannot do this except for certain purchases not intended for the general public.
After looking more into it, I genuinely don't believe that the North Koreans are depriving their people on purpose. The fact that the USA tried to obscure its targeting of the agricultural reservoirs during the war is enough, but their famine in the 90s was one of the biggest disasters of the 20th century.
True famines don't really exist, anywhere, thanks to the Haber/Ostwald process, and almost all of them come from "mismanagement" - I no longer believe that the North Koreans mismanaged anything. It's a blockade - the famine in the 90s wasn't "in spite of foreign help" and it looks like much of the sphere, including South Korea, was prevented from sending assistance.
It looks more like an extreme version of the Great Famine in Ireland and Britain - and being completely unoriginal, the likes of
@Chicken Neck Nelly forget that "your ideology means starvation" was directed towards Catholics before it was directed towards Communism. The USA mimicking Trevelyan isn't surprising, but the fact that this is one of the
few situations where the two are the same - and while the UK did this to its own people, the USA did this to a foreign nation for
purely ideological reasons.
It genuinely looks the same way. I suspect that China and South Korea had been sending meat, dairy and high quality rice - while the USA stepped in and sent inedible corn meal to keep the North Koreans starving.
