>America won the Cold War >Burgers won the Cold War >burgers

File: 1478575266203.png (331KB, 800x510px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 800x510px

>>74471877
>literally defeated communism and saved europe
We saved the entire world anon, no need for pleasantries.

Communism is alive and well and it's currently destroying Europe

>>74471877
Well it is not just that. Many western europeans seem to support Russia against us. Not sure if it is an /int/ meme or IRL as well.

I'd rather watch an Arab have sex with my mother, than to ever go to America

>>74472104
Spoken like a true German

Leeching of achievements by dead people in your room scared to talk to girls, distasteful

>>74472104
Its just as well, were not accepting turks anyways

>>74472104
thank you based german, you are doing a favor to both us and arabs.

>>74472178
I'm whiter than you

hello yes
all communism is gone forever now

thank you bye

>>74472178
>taking the ikib8

>>74472067
Just an internet thing. The putinbot meme is real. Bear in mind there is a lot of Russian diaspora in Europe, especially Germany. Ironic that Russians are portrayed as saviors of the white race when the Russian Federation is just as much a multicultural shithole as the west.

File: burger.jpg (424KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1800x1200px

>>74472337
wish I could give you a burger to toast to that

>>74472067
Nah, its just memeing.
I'd take USA over Russia any day.

>>74471877
I don't hate americans

>>74472104
Laughed irl

File: 1452891157297.png (14KB, 680x554px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 680x554px

FOY

Seriously though, well done yanks. Communism is a plague.

File: commie btfo.gif (3MB, 360x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x202px

>>74473156
T-thanks

>The original founding members of NATO in 1949 consisted of the UK, France, the Low Countries, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Italy, and Portugal. A few years later, Greece and Turkey were added to the alliance, followed by West Germany in 1955. The last member country to be added during the Cold War was Spain, who joined in 1982. Switzerland, Sweden, and Austria elected to remain neutral. Finland, fearing her mighty neighbor, did not join NATO either.

>European countries, fearing a revival of post-World War I American isolationism in the face of the Russian bear, had to be continuously reassured of US commitment.

>Yet what became known to the West as the Warsaw Pact was not comparable to NATO as an alliance. The Pact was not at all a reverse NATO, and NATO was not a reverse Warsaw Pact, as President Clinton strangely claimed. After the fall of the USSR and the opening of Soviet archives, the painfully obvious truth came out that the Warsaw Pact was not a defensive alliance of equals as NATO was, it was a buffer zone created by the Soviet Union that held its members in ruthless subservience.

>>74472104
Stay in your lane turk

>>74474253
>the opening of Soviet archives, the painfully obvious truth came out that the Warsaw Pact was not a defensive alliance of equals as NATO was, it was a buffer zone created by the Soviet Union that held its members in ruthless subservience.
Why were the commies so rude?

>>74472104
alder, bin selber kanake, du hure

>>74471877
they don't actually hate us. they just our government. and our corporations. and our media. and our culture. and our people.

but it's fine. if they need us for anything, then, "we never really hated you. it was all just bantz."

>>74474293
russia has been invaded by stronger powers from the open plains to their west throughout history. It always takes Russia a lot of time to mobilize. They always have, and continue to, see a buffer zone in the west as a strategic defensive imperative.

>Certainly no one in 1945 could have foreseen the geopolitical situation in 1950, a mere five years later, and certainly no one would have guessed a standoff between Moscow and Washington that would go on for 40 years. Both sides were certain the other would fall, the Soviets believed the capitalist system would collapse from within, the US believed communism would fail because of its repressiveness, although probably not without shots being fired.

>Perceptive Western leaders of contrary political views, such as Marshall and Bevin, came to believe that communism was no better or kinder of a system than fascism. So too did some European intellectuals such as the French left-wing activist David Roussett, a Holocaust survivor who called for an investigation into Stalin's labor camps. It seemed fairly obvious that Hitler did not have a monopoly on tyranny.

>During WWII, the United States, more than any other country, had been led to believe that the fascist leaders of Germany, Italy, and Japan did not represent the average citizen of those countries, and that people should be separated from dictators. But as the Cold War unfolded, it became obvious that friends-turned-enemies in Moscow and Beijing could not be taught any lesson without a terminally disastrous war.

>Money seemed to be the answer; after all, Marshall Plan aid was rebuilding Western Europe from the ruins of war, and similar aid was being applied to Japan. But the Great Depression was still a recent memory, and America's financial assets were somewhat limited in the first few years after 1945. As late as 1950, the Dow Jones was much lower than its figure ten years earlier, although real GDP had tripled. Thus alliances, covert operations, and other relatively cheap measures were the best way for the time being to contain communism.

>Thus the opening years of the Cold War were marked by stop and start activities without a coherent plan or long range goals other than preventing another global war. The Depression and WWII had massively expanded the reach of the Federal government, and this trend would continue. Military and governmental secrecy grew. Moral compromises became easier. Isolationism was no longer possible, and the US would bear the brunt of defending the world from communism. To that end, it was inevitable that Washington would find itself siding with some less-than-savory autocrats such as Chiang Kai-Shek and Francisco Franco, although none of their regimes compared with Stalin's Russia for brutality.

>The men in charge of the United States in the late 1940s, those who ran the civilian government, military, and headed major corporations, were mostly born back in the 19th century, in an age of horse buggies and steam-powered railroads, at a time when air travel was science fiction, let alone nuclear weapons. The US-led rescue of Korea in 1950, a country few Americans could find on a map, inflamed the East-West struggle to a level of intensity not seen during the initial postwar years.

>The real Cold War struggle began with the Korean War, which broke out in June 1950. President Truman's speech to Congress calling for US assistance to the Republic of Korea against the communist North's invasion was cheered on the floor of the House. Americans were ready to take up arms against the red menace on this mysterious peninsula few of them had ever heard of.

>One would have been hard-pressed to find a country more unknown to Americans than Korea--never a European colony, never before in the American field of view aside from an incident in 1871 when a US merchant vessel was attacked by a mob outside Pyongyang. So far as Korea was known to Americans at all, it was simply as the subject of jokes about barbarous countries.

>Secretary of State Dean Acheson worried endlessly over the political situation in Asia. Should the communist Chinese succeed in conquering the rump remnant of the KMT on Taiwan, world communism might be given a major morale boost. Not only that, but the "thugs" and "mob bosses" of Chiang Kai-Shek's failed regime could escape dangerously to overseas Chinese communities. All the same, US opinion of the KMT was at an all-time low in 1949-50, and Acheson was not alone when he said that absolutely no American assistance would be given to help Chiang retake the mainland. From this, the communist world divined that Washington most likely would make no effort to save South Korea either.

>In the first few months of 1950, Britain opened diplomatic relations with communist China without consulting Washington at all. Congress terminated aid to South Korea, then restarted it almost as quickly, and more US aid money was being allocated to Southeast Asia to guard against communist subversion. The USSR and China signed a friendship treaty in February. Most Americans did not bother to consider the underlying rivalries between the two communist giants, although a few prescient diplomats in the British Foreign Office believed the Sino-Soviet alliance would not last long.

>>74471957
This

File: 8765434567864246789.png (290KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 644x598px

>>74471877
There is literally nothing wrong with communism.

>>74475813

Are you one of those "true communism have never been tried" ?

>>74474253
>Finland, fearing her mighty neighbor, did not join NATO either.


What kind of an american sub mongoloid iq infant wrote this? The neutrality was purely out of economical reasons, we saw no practical reason to oppose USSR when we were literally the only market capitalist country to have very good trade contracts with them. Also we didn't join since Sweden doesn't join and vice versa.

We still have an agreement that other one doesn't join Nato unless the other one wants to too.

>>74471877
>>America won the Cold War

The cold war is not over yet.

File: 45656899878985.png (289KB, 428x286px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 428x286px

>>74475849
It's been tried plenty of times, and failed for various reasons. Sometimes it was because capitalist forces were determined to see it fail, kind of like how monarchies all ganged up France after the French Revolution. Either way, we learn from the mistakes and avoid them in the future.

>However, Congress remained reluctant to engage in unnecessary defense spending, or firm treaty commitments, still very much believing in Thomas Jefferson's warning about "entangling alliances". The US military had been massively scaled down within six months after the surrender of Japan in 1945, although 108,000 US military personnel were present in the Far East in early 1950, they were little trained and equipped for a real war. The biggest asset available to Washington were the arsenal of atomic bombs, which numbered about 300 in 1950.

>Meanwhile, the North Korean military was well-armed with Soviet planes and tanks, facing down a South Korea that had an army so weak it was little more than an internal police force.

>On June 18, 1950, John Foster Dulles addressed the South Korean National Assembly, in which he stated that the buildup of a prosperous free market society in the ROK would eventually cause the collapse of the communist North, once its citizens realized the superior quality of life that people in the South led.

>A handful of days later, the communist world had its response when 90,000 North Korean troops came surging across the border, using a battle plan drawn up by the Soviet General Staff.

>>74475953
Communism would require you to completely reprogram human nature to work.

>>74475953
Christ, people like you scare me.

Please speak to any eastern european, russian, or chinese person about communism. Hell, even look at Venezuela right now.

File: Reis.jpg (9KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x300px

Thank you based America.
To this day, our government is communist-free.

File: 2025792447391457036842336758.png (245KB, 494x469px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 494x469px

>>74475980
Oh, I forgot about human nature! That's why we've had capitalism for only a few hundred years out of the thousands of years of our existence, right?

>>74475953
>he's a communist and republican
why am I not surprised
get the fuck out of here liberal scum

File: poland tries to save europe again but europe refuses.webm (3MB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 800x450px

>>74476004
You're welcome Poland but now it is up to you to save Europe.

>The nature of Soviet involvement in starting the Korean War is confusing. Although North Korean leader Kim Il Sung had rode to power on the backs of Soviet tanks, Stalin was not enthusiastic about Kim's plans to invade the South, not in the least because it would increase the US presence in the Far East.

>Douglas MacArthur, the hero of the Pacific War, reigned as unofficial emperor of Japan during the postwar occupation. President Roosevelt did not like MacArthur and considered him second only to Louisiana governor Huey Long as the "most dangerous demagogue in America". MacArthur's courage, intellect, and patriotism were enormous, but he was pretty disconnected from the average American, and the European states disliked him nearly as much as FDR had.

>Defeating North Korea should have been simple; the UN issued a resolution condemning the invasion of South Korea, and called for assistance to Seoul. Turkey, the ancient enemy of Russia, was the first nation to rally to the cause. Soon, soldiers from Brazil, Colombia, and Ethiopia would join GIs in fighting and dying in the hills of Korea. But the war went badly as the DPRK steamrolled Seoul and began mass arrests and executions of ROK government officials.

>>74475986
not original guy, but in all of those countries communism was attempted before industrialisation, which is explicitly against Marx's initial idea. A closer example would be industrialised socialist countries like the nordic countries, except without the rapefugees. Of course pure communism would also require all products to be manufactured domestically, which for many countries is impossible to do successfully, and it would probably stifle technological advancements, but in trading advancements and prosperity people get a much more secure economy and a lot more safety nets in general. All things considered there are pros and cons to each, but neither are explicitly good or bad unless they are done incorrectly at some point.

>GIs sealifted from Japan were thrown into action, but found themselves unable to stem the tide of the well-disciplined North Korean army. Their bazooka rounds merely bounced off the hulls of the North Koreans' T-34 tanks. Nor was the US claim of defending the free, democratic South exactly true, for South Korean president Syngman Rhee was an autocrat and a phenomenally corrupt one at that, who executed several thousand of his own citizens for suspected communist sympathies.

>In one of his finest military maneuvers, MacArthur sent a Marine division to land at Inchon, getting in the rear of the KPA and breaking their supply line. The North Koreans were routed, and UN forces retook Seoul. But now what? South Korea was saved and the North Korean army no longer an effective fighting force. Should MacArthur call it mission accomplished or should he drive north and punish the aggressor? China issued strident warnings that they would take action if UN forces crossed into North Korea, and many Americans wondered if the whole war wasn't a feint to distract American attention while the Soviets massed up for an invasion of Western Europe, a situation no doubt aided by the fact that the US was almost completely in the dark about Soviet troop numbers and dispositions.

>>74474977
>During WWII, the United States, more than any other country, had been led to believe that the fascist leaders of Germany, Italy, and Japan did not represent the average citizen of those countries, and that people should be separated from dictators.
Certainly didn't act like it

>But as the autumn of 1950 approached, no Soviet invasion of Western Europe materialized, and US troops in Korea were getting better equipped. With his usual pompousness, MacArthur called for unconditional surrender of the DPRK. Meanwhile, British troops joined in the war, and two of their divisions were bombed by American aircraft in a horrible case of mistaken friendly fire. France could spare only one division, but it fought bravely alongside the American troops, taking many casualties before being shipped off to Indochina.

>On October 1, MacArthur ordered his forces into North Korea, ignoring Chinese warnings of dire consequences. He believed that Beijing was probably bluffing, and even if they did intervene, their ill-equipped troops would likely pose little threat. In late November, a vast horde of Chinese, some 700,000 strong, poured into North Korea and drove back the stunned UN forces all the way below the 38th parallel. There were calls by Americans to use atomic weapons on China and North Korea.

>During the midterm Congressional elections in November, the GOP gained a few seats, but Democrat dominance of the House and Senate remained unchallenged. Notably, Texas Congressman Lyndon B. Johnson took over as the new House Majority Whip.

>Congress approved a major military buildup for Korea, including unlimited conscription. While the US economy in 1950 had skirted the edges of a recession, the war brought about immense profits and prosperity as factories hummed with orders for military hardware.

>>74474253
>>74474812
>>74474977
>>74475282
>>74475601
>>74475770
>>74475959
>>74476165
>>74476409
>>74476657
why are you doing this?

>>74475980
>>74475986
>>74476070
Fuck off low IQ dickheads.

Communism kept the Eastern European subhumans in check. You destroying that was the worst thing that you could've done

>Having quarreled with President Truman and defied orders too many times, MacArthur was fired during 1951. His calls for a great crusade to liberate China from the scourge of communism met with sympathy from most Americans, but few were willing to pay the price in blood and treasure.

>MacArthur's replacement was General Matthew Ridgeway, who thenceforth confined the war to a static defense of the 38th parallel. Ridgeway gained considerable popularity for his improvements to supply, while MacArthur had left thousands of GIs without food, shoes, or bullets. The butcher's bill for the Korean War was high; over 100,000 American servicemen killed or wounded. Not for nothing was it called the coda to WWII.

>Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense George Marshall, the namesake of the Marshall Plan, retired in September 1951 after half a century of service to his country. The quiet, gentlemanly Marshall was a throwback to the citizen-soldier of the Revolutionary War in many ways. Offered $1 million to write his memoirs, he declined, replying "The people of the United States have paid me for my services." Marshall by most definitions was a dinosaur, a representative of an earlier America with a different set of values, and not a man built for the emergent postwar order. One could scarcely him going on speaking tours, being a panelist on a TV talk show, or sitting on the board of a major corporation.

no one "won" the cold war
also call it conspiracy or not but things are too shady to think that we haven't been infiltrated for years

>The times were indeed a-changing. War was becoming big business and increasingly tied up in government bureaucracy. Defense contractors replaced the government armories of an earlier age. And with it, generals became increasingly politicized figures beholden to corporate interests and lobbyists. As such, the US military leadership during the 1950s became steadily more anonymous; the age of colorful warriors such as Winfield Scott, Phil Sheridan, and Douglas MacArthur were over. Indeed, no US general of any public stature arose between Patton and Schwartzkopf.

>Military command became increasingly more technocratic as well, with a degree in a STEM subject becoming almost a requirement to become a commissioned officer in the US armed forces. The days of army generals hobnobbing in Rotary and Eagles clubs (a practice that horrified aristocratic European officers during WWI), were over. Dwight Eisenhower looked like a salesman for a Midwestern plumbing company, and indeed he had once been a college president and a football coach. Despite the millions of veterans from WWII and Korea, no veteran's organization in the postwar era attained the political pull, prestige, or romantic aura of the Grand Army of the Republic, or the WWI veterans groups in the 1920s-30s. Indeed not until the veterans of the Second World War began to die off in the 1980s and beyond would society at large create a mythology around them. Pre-WWII America was a more innocent society that could glorify war and the men who made it.

>The idea of a technocratic US military was not new; Thomas Jefferson had first advocated for it when he founded West Point in 1802. Jefferson would have probably been pleased with the post-WWII US military, a colorful warrior like Andrew Jackson might well have been appalled.

>this thread

I meant burgers as in actual burgers, the food.