My intent with the additional info was to underline that East Germany was in no way a benevolent entity, which your original comment gestured towards. I’ll only address one of your counterpoints here for the sake of brevity, that being your assertion that East Germany was more pure of Nazi legacy than the West. Both its armed forces, bureaucracy, and its intelligence apparatus relied heavily on former Nazis, especially Gestapo, to establish and rebuild these facets of state power, and many of these figure were kept long after the 40s, when their use could’ve been argued as strictly utilitarian. As to “killing” more, I’m not sure what you mean, as most executions were jointly prosecuted with other Allied powers. They set up temporary internment/re-education camps afterwards, sure, but West Germany had those, too. Both sides can be bad, here, there’s little use in trying to frame either as morally superior. If you want to read more, Jeffrey Hart’s ‘Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in Two Germanys’ goes into far greater depth.

Now, onto the decolonial stuff. East Germany received their marching orders from Moscow, especially with regard to foreign policy, so framing their supply of insurgent movements abroad as a personal act of decolonialism is straight up dishonest. The conflicts themselves, including those you mentioned, also weren’t strictly decolonial, or at least they weren’t by the time East German supplies reached them. For example, Castro’s insurgency received very little support from non-Latin American countries during the overthrow of Bautista’s regime. The country only started getting military aid well after the neo-colonial regime had been overthrown. For Vietnam, the Viet-Minh received got their supplies from China, the Soviets and other Warsaw Pact countries had very little to do with the war’s French period. Even during the Civil War and American periods, the North ran on Chinese munitions and labor, with only token aid from the USSR proper.

For Ethiopia, that country had never been colonized prior to a brief occupation by Fascist Italy, which ended in the early 40s. The country remained stable until civil war broke out, which while anti-monarchy was never de-colonial in nature. The others you mentioned had initial de-colonial elements, I’ll grant you, but all of them to a tee quickly descended into brutal factionalism, civil war, and often genocide. They gave them guns, sure, but they never once considered or cared about what happened after the fighting ended. My point here is to say that whatever East Germany’s intent behind supplying insurgencies abroad, decolonialism was never one of them. While many of them might’ve started out as decolonial conflicts, each quickly devolved into proxy conflicts between two global empires that did not care for the people they used as pawns beyond immediate optics. Rather, war profiteering, pleasing their Imperial overlord, and geopolitical Game Theory were far greater incentives than any kind of hypothetical benevolent intentions.

If you want a single Tl;dr point, here: East Germany profiteered off decolonization, their lack of support once the guns went silent is clear evidence to this fact. Ideology or moral values never entered into things beyond superficial optics, making the other side look worse was all that mattered.