WW2 ends

>WW2 ends
>Slows down and lets Russia take Berlin
>Patton says Russia is a threat. Allies should keep pushing east
>Thisisfine.png

>Berlin Blockade
>Instead of pushing Russia's shit in, spend massive resources airdropping resources into blockaded area
>This goes on for a fucking year
>by April it was delivering more cargo than had previously been transported into the city by rail
>Everybody pussies out

>Soviets infiltrated everything
>Get the bomb
>Warhawks say "we should strike now while we have the advantage! Waiting will be a disaster!"
>"Lol they don't even have a way to deliver them."
>Everybody pussies out

>Soviets make ICBMs
>"We've waited too long! But if we hurry, we can still press our massive advantage. They only have a handful."
>Everybody pussies out

>Soviets reach rough parity
>Stage more nukes close to them to have minor advantage
>Soviets chimp out, put nukes in Cuba
>USA and Soviets eventually reach an understanding, Kennedy about to make an announcement
>Soviets publicly say they'd back down if the USA agrees to what they said as well as more concessions
>That was never part of the deal!
>Everybody pussies out

>"Okay. I think we can still salvage this with a missile interception system
>Soviets chimp out upon hearing about this "Stop building a potential counter to nukes or we'll nuke you. Remember, we have dead man switch."
>USA once again pussies out


Why did America let it get so out of hand? Why did they keep letting Soviets gain more and more power and parity? What the fuck were they thinking? Yes, it worked out in the end, but only through sheer fucking luck. The USA gambled so many times and gave up so much relative power that it's mind boggling.

Keep in mind: The United States did not acquire its power or come to define the world order because its system is superior. It did not happen because of great leaders. It did not happen because of a well-placed and intelligent hierarchy. It happened because of a combination of pure luck and everyone else being dead.

Unlike every other world power to EVER exist - Rome, China, Great Britain, France, Spain, etc, which formed from careful maneuvering of power politics and intelligent, well-crafted systems of monarchy, dictatorship, or parliamentarian, the US rose to power based off horrible crony capitalism because the monarchies, parliaments, and dictatorships that ruled the world from Europe destroyed each other. That's *it*. There was no trick to it.

I am an American. We are retarded and our world order is an abomination. It is a miracle we are alive.

This

>destroy the world to make sure you dont lose

Nukes are a total meme and thankfully will never be used in a cold war scenario because its fucking retarded.
Countries like NK shouldnt have them though because they are nuts.

Damn, didn't think any American would ever understand this. Cheers fella.

>Why did America let it get so out of hand?
Idealism. It's just an extenuation of the same debate over FDR and Yalta; giving up positions of power in anticipation of de jure diplomacy that never developed and commitment to international institutions that never lived up to their purpose. The most common conclusion being that America was naive in its belief that European powers wouldn't return to the same ambitions that helped bring about the war in the first place.

The Cold War may have cemented an "us vs. them" mentality for generations since, but relations between America and European powers was actually quite poisonous both during and after the war. The US was investing into the UN, lobbying for nontraditional powers like Brazil to be given a permanent seat on the security council (blocked by Britain), and pursuing policy aimed at turning China into a pro-Western democracy. Britain was putting down an independence movement in Indonesia to reinstall the Dutch. Relations with France tanked when we refused to assist them in holding onto Vietnam, despite all the assets available in China.

To say nothing of public opinion, America becoming "world police" as early as you seem to be advocating would have been an impossibility.

What a load of idiotic drivel.

The whole point is that the US had a million chances to avoid an end of the world scenario ever being possible, and just let things get more and more likely to end that way.

It's a miracle of absurd blind luck that the cold war never got hot. The smart move would have been using the superior force to plow over the Soviets before they could ever get to that point.

So, US should have went to the war agaisnt the Soviets.
Cause the Soviets wanted to destroy the US.
Even if the Soviets did not destroy the US.

>people unnironicaly bealive that Patton was a good strategist
>people unnironicaly bealive US should have started ww3 for Berlin blocade
>people unnironicaly bealive that A bomb was useful before ICBM´s

>Leaving Patton in charge
I'll just remind you, this was the guy thought uniforms were more important than strategy and sacrifice his officers on the altar of his own ego. He should have been a Soviet general really

Even in a best case scenario where the western allies emerge unscathed, you plunge a huge chunk of the world (everything east of Berlin up to Vladivostok) into utter chaos. The last thing anyone really wanted post WW2 was another huge fucking conflict that would kill tens of millions.

Re: "Okay. I think we can still salvage this with a missile interception system" if the USA seriously took steps to nullify MAD then yeah, the USSR has got fuck all choice but to gamble with nukes before they become defenseless.

You're alright m8

The American legacy will not be something to look back upon with pride.

What would I, as an American, gain by starting a land war in Asia at any point in this story? Really why would start a fight with the one thing that could beat me?
Pic is you, but prove the US wouldn't get stuck like the nazis, the germans, and Napoleon, first.

>People unironically believe that Patton was a bad strategist
>People unironically believe the US shouldn't have started WW3 to drive the Bolsheviks back into the snow
>People unironically believe that early atomic bombs were any less destructive than firebombing campaigns

The Germans didn't get stuck, they were able to push through their terms on the Russians while fighting a multi-front war. Had the Nazis not had to worry about the Atlantic Wall or North Africa, they could have struck the death blow at Moscow. There's no reason to think the US couldn't have been incredibly successful at the very least at pushing the Russians out of Eastern Europe. The Red Army's supply lines were spread incredibly thin and were not equipped to continue sustained combat against a willing opponent outside of Russia. You have to be one helluva Russiaboo to think the Soviets in 1945 could have conquered Europe by defeating the US, Brits, French, Allies, and what remained of the Wehrmacht.

Berlin blockade was a test of US logistical capacity, remember during stalingrad Goering said the luftwaffe could airlift in supplies, but they failed miserably at it. The US did it without breaking a sweat. It's logistics that wins wars, by doing this for a whole year it showed Stalin that the USA was a far more capable adversary than Germany.

>he thinks starting the war with the most powerful army in the world (and backstabbing your ally at the same time) is a good idea
>he thinks US ever had any actual offensive plan against the WP and werent supposed just to hold the line against dozens of thousands of tanks
>he thinks USSR had no airforce to shoot down the B-29

The Soviets pussied out quite a few times too. In the 1980s they worked with Reagan to reduce armaments on both sides because they were concerned about the USA having an advantage in Nuclear offense and defense and wanted to even the odds.

It's more like everyone else was more retarded than us.

Constitutional republicanism, when properly applies, creates a floor on the level of retard.

>they could have struck the death blow at Moscow
Surely this is bait?

>I don't understand logistics: The Post

Yeah I'm sure all of those army groups that were distracted in the Mediterranean and Atlantic would have made no difference at all on the Eastern Front.

>Pic is you, but prove the US wouldn't get stuck like the nazis, the germans, and Napoleon, first.
Prove that America's nukes wouldn't get beaten by General Winter?

Everyone else deciding to be retarded is not luck. There is no such thing as luck.

They'd melt the snow :^)

>ww3 in 1948
>who had nuclear devices at the time
>oh, Russia and America
>who had nuclear devices that made for viable strategic weapons? Oh still Russia and America

Kinda need the world for a global nuclear war, also need more powerful nukes

Most of the divisions in France weren't equipped with any motor pool because they were static divisions, how are they going to get to the Eastern Front and then be a viable offensive force?

Most of the divisions in the German army weren't equipped with any motor pool because they used fucking horses.

Don't be a dickhead, they all had a motor pool (mostly for kubelwagons and other shit) of varying sizes before material losses stripped it bare

>>Patton says Russia is a threat. Allies should keep pushing east
why was he murdered?

Because Americans did not wanted to loose entire Europe to the Soviet union.

>yuropoor gaslights as an american to enforce the European sense of superiority and calm their nerves so that they are not reminded that we have the capability to take 2 or even 3 of them on head to head and btfo them for their insolence

You cant machine gun us down and call it good, our concept of war doesn't revolve around chucking spears or swinging clubs.