Let's discuss about how admirable and scumbag were both of them
atomic bombs and mutually assured destruction is fucking stupid
The cold war made the world a very boring place
>tfw no ww3 stories to tell grandkids of infront of fireplace
the space program of the CCCP was based
AND IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMP AMERICA
>won the cold war
>landed people on the fucking moon
>lots of naval power
AND IN THIS CORNER, WE HAVE HEAVYDRINK CHAMP SOVIET RUSSIA
>lost the cold war
>first man in space
>lots of land power
the "regional power " will rise again soon
Jocularity aside, we really do have a massive obesity problem. After going to Germany in the summer I can't believe how fucking chunky our population is.
Just ask any ~50 year old person that lived in the Warsaw Pact if they liked Soviet rule.
I have. Many times. They all said it was horrible unless you were part of the political elite.
>Global trade wouldn't exist without the US Navy guaranteeing free passage.
I think you may be overstretching that statement a bit. It's not like any major powers are going around smashing apart merchant vessels to plunder cargo.
It's kinda like the Barbary pirates of the early 19th century but with Somalians.
Well, the US military would have serious trouble dealing with the USSR on land. However, at sea they held and still hold an overwhelming advantage. That's why they're so concerned about the SCS, because China is threatening the dominance they've had for 70 years. Moreover, the global system that America built based on free trade meant that America became the richest power ever.
>They all said it was horrible unless you were part of the political elite.
Nobody from my family or my neighbours families were, yet everyone who I know has fond memories of those times. You have to be pretty fucking brainwashed to think that everything was just bad and nobody except the higher ups found it good.
All it takes is a quick Google search to realize that there are still major differences even after two decades of the reunification.
I remember reading this same post before in some other board.
But let's have a little discussion here. After the end of WWII, Germany was occupied by three main forces. USSR, America and France. The latter two formed a sort of alliance and ruled over it and poured a shitton of money into to compete with USSR. USSR on the other hand had to restore Eastern Germany and itself after WWII. At some point Stalin did suggest to the Western politicians to have a public voting to see whether or not Germany should be reunited again. That proposal was ignored. Also, you're ignoring the fact that Eastern Germany doesn't represent all of USSR. There are capitalist countries that have been capitalist for decades as well and yet they're considered shitholes.
I can tell you that a majority of these sorts of google searches are wrong. As someone who was born and raised in USSR and then started living in a capitalist country and then even in a country that joined EU. We got fucked very hard after joining the EU. Whilst my country was propsering as a communist one.
Also, Germany, both back then and now, is under very tight control and a lot of the information that is being shown to the public is cherrypicked, not that I'm saying that in Eastern Germany everything was ideal. I also suggest you google the Die deutsche Karte book and how it was published by Komossa in Austria, instead of Germany, because Komossa feared for his life. Ironically enough, Komossa went missing after his book made a pretty big uproar in Germany.
>Korolev died before bringing it to the apex
I lived about half a mile from a Cold War communications backbone relay tower in the 70s and 80s down in the south of England.
As a teen i worried about how we would live in a nuclear winter (especially having seen Threads) but i never figured out that even tho the tower was always there it was a high profile target.
With Soviet ICBM accuracy in those days a nuke just as likely to go off above my bedroom. Worrying about surviving the strikes was a bit of waste of time.
Better question is why does anyone take the US seriously? They're only good for those same nukes that other countries have. All their special forces constantly fail when competing in international matches with other special forces. I mean if you look at US war history, they've practically never beaten anyone in a war that hasn't been somehow sabotaged.
How are "they" ruling "us"? The only kind of impact I can feel the US having on me at any time of the time is forcefeeding shitty products and commercials down my throat over the internet. Otherwise they've got nothing on me.
Like most of my generation I was fascinated by war and military tech too. I remember reading Red Storm Rising back when Warsaw Pact was still about and thinking that yeah was a good chance we could do this and I might live when it kicked off.
I spent more time worrying about our boys at the Fulda Gap and Atlantic convoys and Backfire attacks than i did about nukes.
I wonder how close it got if the Sovs actually knew that Star Wars was years behind what they thought it was
>Only media public opinion and politicians have held back the US to date.
Held back from what exactly? Why did they need to hold back in Afghanistan? Or do you honestly think that the US tried holding back in Vietnam?
I don't think holding back is the right word. Afghanistan and Vietnam were both lost because public opinion forced us to pull out before we finished the job. The insurgency and Vietcong didn't have the resources to last indefinitely, but the American military with the resources of the country behind it certainly could.
Do you really not understand the difference between total war and political, proxy or other types of asymmetrical warfare?
It means things like not crossing borders of other nations like in Vietnam for instance, are you serious?
>Afghanistan and Vietnam were both lost because public opinion forced us to pull out before we finished the job.
And because you were having major losses. And Afghan may have been won over time, since you stopped supporting them when they went they went rogue, but the Vietnam situation was different, since the Vietnamese got support from USSR.
>Do you really not understand the difference between total war and political, proxy or other types of asymmetrical warfare?
Do you? Especially if you take into consideration that during the Cold War it was all about nukes? So you wouldn't have been able to do jack shit if shit were to go actually down.
>Do you? Especially if you take into consideration that during the Cold War it was all about nukes? So you wouldn't have been able to do jack shit if shit were to go actually down.
Yeah because disregarding international law and waging total war in Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia would have triggered MAD, sure thing.
What are some good representations of the Cold War in fictional media? I feel like it's gotten really popular lately with things like the Americans and Deutschland 83 (which are both fantastic imo)
>If one of them doesn't, then neither of them have to.
That's my point, the US automatically applies the same set of rules or conduct to every conflict.
It is never winnable. Fighting asymmetrical warfare through conventional means is always going to be a recipe for disaster.