To be a devil's advocate, during WW2, Polish insurgency forces were also sponsored by the USA (fighting first against the Nazi occupiers, then Soviet occupiers), UK and few other nations.

What's the difference? Is there a difference?

[–] meekah@discuss.tchncs.de -3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

People who are defending a regime that is using force on its own people are always bad, no matter who coined the term.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 weeks ago

The Hungarian counter-revolution was led by fascists. They let Nazis out of prison, and were lynching Jewish people and communists. They were armed and trained by MI6, and had connections to the CIA at minimum. Had the fascists succeeded, Hungary would have seen the same devastation it ended up seeing in the 90s when the Soviet Union dissolved, a sharp fall in life expectancy, massive wealth disparity, huge increases in drug abuse and prostitution, huge spikes in homelessness and poverty.

To put it in other terms, imagine if the January 6th rioters started lynching officials, and were backed by a foreign power.

[–] KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Every single state on this planet has a (police) force that is used on its own people.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 weeks ago

its own people

Westerners always through in this arbitrary qualifier because they want their governments to keep using brutal force against foreigners so long as they don't do it domestically.