Was this the biggest humiliation of the modern era?

absolutely but its amazing how well they were able to do when everything they had was inferior to american equipment and their strategy was essentially a zerg rush.
With such poor equipment compared to the americans it should have been a one sided massacre but nope the Americans got chased out.

That's nothing compared to the self-inflicted humiliation known as Brexit.

>Seriously what the fuck happened?
MacArthur was a hack and his men forget basic infantry tactics, while the Chinese were pretty good light infantry. Ridgway promptly sacked a third of the officers and retrained the army, after which they gutted the Chinese.
>You cant even argue that because more Chinese soldiers died that they were the ones who really lost out because their population is so vastly superior.
You can totally argue though that the massive strain placed on the Chinese economy, to the point where Mao's regime nearly collapsed during the war, made the conflict much more proportionally costly for them. Also, China's explicit goal, per Mao, was to unify the Korean Peninsula under Communist rule. This failed.
The Chinese didn't use AKs. Korea was WW2 with jets.

I'd agree if the EU was actually a stable working union, but it isn't, it's turned from a peaceful trade agreement to the idealism of a few suicidal progressives.

UK getting out might be a wake up call, I doubt it too. Not while EPP rules.

What's unstable or not working about the EU?

>can't solve something as simple as letting countries close their borders to refugees
>pretty much follows USA foreign policy, copy and paste, no initiative of their own

It's spineless and a hostage to progressive pipe-dreams.

The fact is that on paper there was absolutely no way the Americans should have been defeated by such a technologically inferior force, but they were.

CHINK'D

Along that line, electing Donald Trump was pretty bad too

wrong

source: ec.europa.eu/immigration/who-does-what/more-information/explaining-the-rules-why-are-there-eu-rules-and-national-rules_en

as for number two, which countries didn't participate in the Iraqi war again?

You do realize being out of the union the UK will just become more of our (US) Bitch right?

>american here to tell us all about EU

>can't solve something as simple as letting countries close their borders to refugees

If everybody just followed the damn program, the refugees would be so thinly spread out across Europe they'd be completely unnoticeable. The countries that are refusing to take their share are the ones who are causing the problems.

Of course, there's a reason why Schroder's removal is rumored to have had CIA involvement in it. EU wasn't a hostage to progressive pipe-dreams back in the early 2000s (so it was mostly okay back then), now it is with the likes of Merkel and Macron.

There's no denying this, unless it somehow gets with the Commonwealth. But then you have to get with the Trudeautatorship which is pretty much more in line with current EU idealists than with the UK. Australia's too far away without Canada.

Or EU could just decide together not to take any of them in.

>b-but muh international law!

Like I said, spineless. USA, China, Russia ignore it when needed. EU tries to be the proper student but that's not how you do geopolitics.

>he thinks I'm American

>Why didn't Capitalism create something prosperous like Hong Kong?

You're American. You use the word "progressive" in this political context. Why would you lie to people on the internet?

>Or EU could just decide together not to take any of them in.
>Each EU country alone decides: [...]
>All final decisions on migrant applications;

>promise to give it back in 99 years
>give it back in 99 years
What was wrong with this?

Nah an American would use socialist or communist, when there's pretty much nothing of either of them in either the EU or any other establishments we're talking about.

Well you can't really help Germany being unironically cucked and loving having refugees in, I guess.

you're kinda dumb aren't you?

*It Ain't Me starts playing*

aaaand we're back to "humanism = cuckoldry"

fuck off america honestly

>lease a city for 100 years
>give it back 100 years later
No.

>korean war
>AKs

take a gander at a map and see how many koreas there are.
The US, after defeating the north korean invasion, changed their goal from repelling communism to unifying the whole peninsula. China entered the war, and look what happened.
Are you claiming that everyone else is lying and that the US did in fact unite the korean peninsula and all this kim jong un stuff is one big joke that everyone but you is in on?

>Brits went to war over this

>but not this

LMAO

>The US, after defeating the north korean invasion, changed their goal from repelling communism to unifying the whole peninsula
No that was MacArthurs idea he decided all on his own

One is British other is pretty much Chinese with some British capital in.

...

One was defensible, the other was not.
Guess which one was which?

The Treaty of Versailles

There was actually a war over that, Brits just handed Hong Kong over without a single shot fired.

so Truman just let him do it becuase hurr durr i cant control him guys XD XD XD?

If he fundamentally disagreed with the idea he would have fired MacArthur the second he crossed the border but instead he waited until the Chinese were pushing the UN forces back.

Was MacArthur the real life version of D A M A G E D?

>not giving it to Taiwan
Thatcher's biggest mistake tbqh

>The US, after defeating the north korean invasion, changed their goal from repelling communism to unifying the whole peninsula. China entered the war, and look what happened.
There was one power with the explicit goal of uniting the Korean Peninsula (and who helped start the war to enact this goal). It was not the USA.

this is absolutely true at the start of the war but motives change.

>human wave a smaller enemy
>win
Americans should've accounted for how Chinese kill millions of themselves all the time and are actually subhuman insect people.

He can redeem himself tomorrow or this saturday and extend it a few minutes more.

I don't think you're understanding, Truman permitted crossing the border because the North Koreans didn't just suddenly give up. There is no record of America or the UN mission having the unification of the peninsula as a goal
No it didn't

UK recognised PRC as the legitimate Chinese government. Ship sailed on that when UK, US, France decided to just give the RoC seat to PRC.

>EU doesn't work because refugees
Imagine being this shallow

>China
>Bitch slapping anyone
You mean in Korea when the chinks attack an outnumbered and overextended task force while failing to take the south?

I guess i dont understand.
It just doesnt make sense that Truman would allow MacArthur to go so far north long after North Korea had been defeated with Pyongyang in UN hands unless there was some underlying hope that they could unify the peninsula.

Not really. Uniting the Korean Peninsula was never ever a US goal unlike with the Chinese. This is why, among other reasons, Truman forbade Ridgway from pushing the Chinese out of North Korea after he reconstituted his army and crushed them. Even though at that point the Chinese were incredibly vulnerable. The US just didn't see the North as worth it, so instead of taking it again they just reduced it to agrarian levels by destroying every single city to the point where the USAF ran out of things to bomb and started dropping bombs in random fields.

Because they wouldn't fucking surrender

>formally returning Hong Kong
>humiliating
I get it, the Eternal Anglo for once respected an agreement and didn't backstab anyone.

the first half of the winter war before the soviets got their shit together

Versailles should've been harsher.

This seemed to happen a lot to the Italians in WW2.

When the Greeks surrendered following the Balkan Campaign, they did so under the condition that they would only surrender to the Germans. The Italians couldn't be present at the ceremony, because the Greeks didn't respect them. Pretty embarrassing since the campaign only went so smoothly for the Germans on part of 3/4 of Greece's army being arrayed against the Italians.

During the North Africa campaign, a lot of Australian soldiers regarded the "poor bloody eyeties" with pity rather than respect or fear. This pissed off a lot of captured officers.

On May 2, when a German general was signing the surrender of Army Group C in Italy to the Anglo-Americans, Italian Social Republic general Rodolfo Graziani was present. He came for nothing because the British representatives informed him his signature was not required for the surrender.

>the absolute state of the italian army

>China's explicit goal, per Mao, was to unify the Korean Peninsula under Communist rule. This failed.
Yeah, but the Korean war is almost the definition of a stalemate, both sides got a pretty mediocre deal.

Ask the spanish, fuckers still want that damn rock.

It was probably the Six-Day War if you were on the Arabs' side.

a pretty important war removing the global image of jews being weak and incapable people

>both sides got a pretty mediocre deal.
but the commies got curbstomped especially the north which failed in its ultimate goal to unify the peninsula.

After the Anglo-Zanzibar war, Great Britain fined Zanzibar for the cost of the ammunition the Brits shot at them.

Was there ever that global image? I thought the Jews were always seen as being too capable?

Pretty shitty honestly, Chinese proved you can win a battle by burying your enemy with the corpses of your soldiers, on top of that McArthur spread himself out like a motherfucker, Truman fucked the post WWII Army and Marine Corps because he thought he could replace everything with the Air Force, this in turn left the Army and Marine Corps hurting for experienced personnel, even the Marine Corps which is usually 100% volunteer had to draft a bunch of guys and reactivate any reserve units it had left.

Honestly the US military would've been double fucked if they went up against a competent military force and not just a numerically superior one

Bull, you can't even critize half of the wealthiest 1% of the US because 50 million of their ancestors were allegedly killed by masturbation machines almost a century ago.

>only did so because of British generosity
the lease on the new territories was for 99 years and it expired, China was able to negotiate the return of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon at the same time despite the fact that those had been given to Britain in perpetuity, by promising to respect Hong Kong's democratic government for 20 years.

What's pathetic about that exactly?

That China was such a little bitch it let the UK hold Hong Kong and its surrounds for 99 years

Pic related has to be the biggest single humilitation, at least for a Western great power. This was the moment British prestige and power East of Suez was irretreviably lost.

Respecting the agreements your nation made with foreign nations makes you a little bitch?

What a ridiculous thing to say.

do you honestly feel that way?

>The ROC and PRC signed the agreement the Qing did

I know, I know, they are British and all but it's remarkable how much it looks like your average town in Argentine Patagonia

tell me, what does the C stand for in both of those abreviations

Its the same nation even if it has a new government, just because you have a revolution doesn't mean you can now just declare war on whoever you want because "you have muh clay!!!". Britain is btw a nuclear armed state. You really think getting HK back a few years early is worth permanently destroying relations with Britain or even starting a nuclear war?

Looks communist

I wasn't aware Britain had nukes in the 1900s, 10's, 20's, 30's and 40's

Not him and I'm not going to defend the Anglos, but your argument is a load of nonsense. A revolution creates a completely new entity, Russian empire and the USSR have nothing to do with each other aside from existing on the same territory.

Then how do you explain the USSR's Karakhan declaration?

>Was there ever that global image?
well yes, an image of them being constantly persecuted and defeated was an image far before hitler and WW2
there are definite exceptions but for the most part they have been seen as a people being oppressed by others (romans, egyptians, spaniards under the inquisition etc.)

>mostly low spacious houses
>communist
Wut?

>We sold our constituents down the river, but the Chinks will be nice until the next generation grows up and gets to inherit the oncoming genocide
>Whats pathetic about that

he was saying Mao was pathetic for not seizing HK immediately, not that the British were pathetic for giving it back

But to you I'd have to say what were they supposed to do, it was a 99 year lease and it expired.

So many of these will be British...
Oh heck anyway the fact we "sold" some half decent jet engines to the Soviets (15 Rolls Royce Nene) with a pinky promise they wouldn't use them militarily and straight away they reverse engineer and produce them and building the MiG-15 around it...

This picture: pretty much looks like Poland.

*Napalms internally*

I'm Polish and that doesn't look like Poland at all.
Looks more Scandinavian to me (Iceland, Norway)

>nothing matters but k/d
every time
fucking pathetic

Hopefully China will demand a lease on Southampton or Dover soon. Bring the Anglos to heel.

>UK dishonors an agreement with a foreign nation
fuck the eternal anglo, more like the eternal jew they are the cause of all the evils in this world fucking kikes fucking perfidious albion

>UK honors an agreement with a foreign nation
holy fucking kek anglos BTFO what a humiliation for those cucks, YELLOWED

Yeah lol just invade a nuclear power and start WW3 hhehehe

A first world country lost North Korea to a third world starving shithole in a civil war?
That what you meant to say?

>Also, China's explicit goal, per Mao, was to unify the Korean Peninsula under Communist rule. This failed.
[Citation needed]

That only became the goal in late November 1950, as shown in many records.

The US goal was to defeat North Korea. That was the strategic goal from September 1950. The US did not do that.

Source?

Because you are 100% wrong. The US NSC clearly stated the war goal to unify Korea under a democratic regime in September 1950. That is why we crossed the parallel.

The US goal was explicitly to defeat North Korea as of September 29th, 1950.

>what is the UN
>what is the cold war
>what is a refusal to escalate
>what is the sacking of MacArthur

You literally don't know anything about the Korean War