Can we have thread about (Cold war) NATO?
Why Portugal joined and Sweden did not?
How Nato got both Greece and Turkey to join?
Was NATO US plot to have influence over Europe or European plot to have influence over USA?
How would WW3 looked in 50s/60s/70s/80s?
NATO was/is just a security pact. Will it lead to WW3 like Triente (sic)? No, I doubt it personally.Better thread would be about the endemic failures of the UN
The UNSC basically fulfilled its mandate, which is to preserve relative peace and stability, quite well.
Other UN organs on the one hand have widely varying degrees of accomplishment: UNESCO does its bit pretty good I would say, while the HRC is a shameful display of hypocrisy and pandering to third-world dictatorships.
NATO is an antiquated relic of the cold war, that serves nothing more today than to enforce the will of the USA and her British lapdog across the globe, there's no benefit to the world as a whole from NATO, it serves no purpose other than to provoke Russia thanks to the USA believing they are somehow the defenders of freedom and liberty (as long as its in their best interest)
Both NATO and the Warsaw pact caused enough troubles during the cold war, the only difference is that Warsaw pact had the decency to off itself at the fall of the Soviet Union
>US formally becomes allies with a bunch of European countries after World War II
>they refuse to contribute anything and whine about it for a half a century, only members worth a damn are the US, Turkey, and Poland
>despite not really doing anything and quite frequently refusing to enter US wars, they still get called "US lapdogs" and "US cocksuckers" by Russiaboos who are not intelligent enough to describe international politics without some sort of reference to oral sex
The French and British Have an Inferiority complex about America replacing them as the Center of Western Civilization
They call America Imperialistic forgetting that they Practiced Imperialism far more often and more brutal back when they were the center of Western Civilization
America should have listened to the Conseratives(The real ones, Not Mordern Cucks) and prevented the great rapprochement in 1895
>They call America Imperialistic forgetting that they Practiced Imperialism far more often and more brutal back when they were the center of Western Civilization
To be fair, back then everyone was doing it, imperialism was an accepted social norm....
It's funny how the more you read about the British Empire you realize more and more that it was basically just the George W. Bush administration in America extended over several centuries in another country.
It is still very much practiced, European countries besides Russia just don't have the means to practice it anymore. I suppose France does still exude a quasi-colonial influence over its former African imperial possessions, but there don't seem to be many other exceptions.
>It is still very much practiced, European countries besides Russia just don't have the means to practice it anymore. I suppose France does still exude a quasi-colonial influence over its former African imperial possessions, but there don't seem to be many other exceptions.
Turkey is not European, but it's in NATO as a strategically convenient location.
Erdogan has turned it into an Islamo-police state, but during the cold war it was a right-leaning secular police state, just the kind of thing that doesn't like commies, so it made sense to have them in NATO, and right under Russia's nutsack in the Caucasus.
You can do whatever you want as long as you mobilize if another NATO country is (really) attacked. The problem is that if there was an actual need to invoke article 5 you would literally be the Italy to our Nazi Germany in terms of incompetence. These are the defense ministers of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden a year ago (yes, I know Sweden isn't NATO, but they would be on our side during a happening along with Finland). The German one in particular has no military experience and is the former Minister of Family Affairs and Youth, the Dutch one also has no military experience and is a former member of the Committee for Transport and Tourism in the EU parliament. The Norwegian one is a lawyer and TV producer, no military experience. The Swedish one is not in office anymore but had no military experience, her predecessor also has no military experience. Western European countries are complete military dead weight, allying with you at this point only serves the purpose of keeping you out of somebody else's sphere of influence. I wish that it wasn't true, but it is.
The Iran Coup ONLY happened because of Churchill and his cockrider Eden Tricking Eisenhower into thinking Mossadeq was a commie, They also economicly wise benefited the most from it
The British are more to blame for it than America is
US-backed coup to prevent Allende from going pro-Soviet
The British Operation Ajax installed the shah.
More commies. It's in the best interests of both the countries involved and the US to prevent communist takeovers, as they inevitably became Soviet puppets and broke ass lands, excluding the dearly departed Yugoslavia. Anyone who honestly believes that the USSR were the good guys should get to bed, they need to study for 8th grade sociology.
Soviets roll over Europe
Soviets roll over Europe but are nuked into oblivion
Soviets roll over Germany before the world is nuked into oblivion
The world is nuked into oblivion
>Why Portugal joined and Sweden did not?
Sweden had a strong military and at the start of the 1950 the worlds 4th largest air force. Their whole military strategy (as well as Finland's) was to ensure that taking Sweden would be so insanely costly that it wouldn't be worth the effort. That's why strange stuff like the tank Stridsvagn 103, pic related, emerged. Perfect for a defensive war in Sweden but utterly useless everywhere else on the planet.
>Soviet victory except maaaaybe the 80's
Honestly, in every metric, the armored push would stall after going through west Germany, and then be contained along natural borders and in extremely hard to take cities. The technology gap varied depending on the year, but keep in mind, the Soviets had notoriously bad supply issues in many cases, making any tech advantage they had stop once it broke down.
Also, considering how much NATO prepared for a purely defensive war, with West Germany as an acceptable scorched earth casualty, it would have resulted either in stalemate, nuclear annihilation or NATO "victory" with a collapse of the USSR due to popular discontent when they get into something worse than Afghanistan.
I'm coursing military history in uni and this thread is making me blind. 0.1% of everything posted here makes some relevant sense. Please stop posting if you don't know what you're talking about. This makes me extremely mad.
It is a gross simplification to imply that Chile or Guatemala were going to go pro-soviet. Allende was a social democrat, not necessarily slobbering
A lot of problems in Latin America were caused by the US propping up right-wing autocrats, military dictatorships and generally interfering in these country's affairs long before the cold war, in the 1890s to 1930s. Most of these leftist rebels were not really committed Marxists or whatever as much as merely looking for more democratic reforms (at least at first, before the Soviets decided to help them). Most of Latin America had flawed democracies that allowed only the small rich land owning creoles (descendants of Europeans) to control affairs. 90% of the population and more were excluded from decision-making processes. The US strongly supported these governments. The soviets used rebels to try to gain footholds beyond Cuba (which was also not, in the first days of its liberation, communist -- Che and Castro only professed Marxism when it was clear they would get help from no one else).
tl;dr: Commies suck, but so does living under right-wing death squad governments.