Were they really strong or is it just a meme? You know how the

>>69818582
Let the dead rest

I was reading some declassified documents from the 1950s and it is clear that the US government believed that the Soviets had the desire and more importantly the capability to try to achieve complete global domination, and the latter is probably true. USSR 1950s-early 1970s could've matched the US, USSR in the 1940s/1980s+ probably would have lost due to their economic situation.

>>69818582
The West greatly overestimated the Soviets. Everyone, from economists to politicians to military advisors highly overrated the ability of the Soviets to wage war, the truth was that the system was falling apart, technology was stagnating, the social classes were degrading, and morale was nonexistent.

In the 50s and 60s the Soviets were a real threat. To Europe. But by the 70s much was stagnating. On paper the Russians looked quite good, but Western Europe was recovering, almost entirely recovered by that point, while the East hadn't really grown much at all. Sure they had a lot of tanks, sure they had a lot of planes, but just how long could they wage war? Just how many of them would be willing to fight?
By the 80s the system was falling to pieces and the Soviets weren't a threat to anyone but Germany and Finland.

Of course there was always the threat of nuclear annihilation, but then, the Soviets never planned for a first strike. Their military was rooted in the idea the West would attack them. That should they become weak and complacent the West would seek to toppled communism, and of course that wasn't on anyone in the West's mind. The West was afraid of Soviet aggression to destroy freedom.

Even saying Russia wasn't a threat though, any war with the USSR would have been bloody beyond measure. Even a decisive victory would have been mired in rivers of blood on both sides. and despite my claims of Russian inferiority in material and morale by the 80s, I highly doubt any stunning victories would occur until the war neared its completion. It was never a question of how hard they could hit, that was adequately guessed and well feared, it was a question of how long they could keep swinging, which ended up highly overrated to say the least.

>>69818826
I think 50's-60's USSR was even more threatening for the US due to its great demography (like 200M+ while US had 150M+ inhab.).
It's really during the middle of the 60's that the US overran USSR capabilities, this not counting on the fact that western Europe development became somewhat relevant.

>>69819088
>>69818973
Not at all. The Soviet Union was in a much weaker position in the 50s-60s due to the demographic disaster of WWII.

>>69819237
.... demography that became more and more overran by US's one.

I think up to maybe the late 70s they had the capability to overrun Europe and Asia.
But really no way of striking at the USA without triggering MAD

>>69818582
Correction: they wouldnt have won WW2 without Britain
It just wouldnt have been as fast and more costly without US

File: destroyed.jpg (140KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 645x773px

>>69821570

The USSR up to 1965 was much poorer and weaker than it was in the Reagan years by which time they had the strongest military on Earth.

>>69821570
How many wehrmacht had reservers on his border with France at september 1939 ?
ZERO.

File: christmas present.webm (908KB, 405x720px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 405x720px

>>69822005
>Reagan years by which time they had the strongest military on Earth.

>>69822297
Is that part of a CP video? It had better not be.

>>69822333
It's just some libcuck parents trying to turn their nice daughter into a coalburner but she's not having it. Read the filename.

>>69818582
Strong enough apparently to cuck you for 40 years. :^)