>>85404275

>Has there ever been a worse national humiliation than the Russian loss to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war?

Yes, the Japanese loss to Soviet Union in Manchuria.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/io32SnyhYpM?t=10195
encyclopedia.com/topic/Korean_War.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon
cbc.ca/radio/rewind/the-vietnam-war-canada-s-role-part-one-1.3038110
youtube.com/watch?v=aSZosqXOyc0
libguides.law.uga.edu/c.php?g=177212&p=1164830
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This

So Ivans only feel confident in fighting Japs once they've been thoroughly defeated by American steel and arms? Makes a lot of sense, even in victory the Russians are a pathetic bunch that can only go after beaten and demoralized people.

Manchuria was way before your late entry into WW2, my fellow retard.

Oh Khalkhin Gol? Figured he meant Manchuria, 1945.

Nice try m8, but nah. By mid-1945 the Japanese Empire was on it's last legs and had it's hands completely full dealing with the United States. The war was essentially over by the time the USSR leaped in and said "LOL, MANCHURIA IS SOVIET CLAY NOW".

>beaten and demoralized people
Sounds like Americans after Vietnam.

You mean after our sound victory and triumphant peace? Gee I'm really thinking hard Ivan, thank you for correcting my record.

Sounds like vodka niggers after Afghanistan.

>inb4 u2

>The war was essentially over by the time the USSR leaped in
Soviet Union has invaded specifically because Western Allies "pleaded" us to.

It's the opposite day in SHART MART country I see.

...

By any measure we soundly achieved victory in Vietnam. The fact that a subsequent anti-American left-wing government then in turn refused to give arms to South Vietnam and recommence bombing raids does not negate that victory.

>Soviet Union has invaded specifically because Western Allies "pleaded" us to.
Way to rewrite history, ignoring the Soviet insistence that they be able to take part in the spoils of East Asia. And while we rebuilt the region, Russian greed simply exploited the situation, installing Stalinist puppet governments, seizing infrastructure, mass expulsions of Japanese populations.

Was going to post this. What a fucking journey.

>By any measure we soundly achieved victory in Vietnam

If that was the case, it would still be called "Saigon" and not "Ho Chi Minh City"

you lost. You lost in Korea and you lost in Vietnam. Your objectives were not met in either war = you lost.

I don't see why that's so hard for Americans to accept.

>longest stretch of supply lines in human history
>the only belligerent on one side as opposed to many auxiliary suppliers of tech and industry from the Americans on the Japanese side
>have (((creditors))) deny them any loans while having notorious globalist and ZOG influences like Jacob Schiff supply Japan with a small fortune worth more than the continent of Africa.

Yea no totally, Russia lost because they're subhuman slavs :----DDD

You clearly don't know the objectives of either war. The existence of an advanced an highly functional democracy in South Korea is a testament to just how much we succeeded.

The same was true for South Vietnam. Democracy and freedom were saved, however the left-wing Ford administration had no resolve to continue our policy of backing South Vietnam with arms and, if necessary, our own forces.

Why is this so hard to understand for a country that exists because of American policy in the region?

The Russians had the Japs both outgunned and out-manned, it was there own ineptitude and inferior tactics which lost the war.

This was a chosen war, fought not out of necessity but over butthurt from being trounced on the ground. They CHOSE to pick a fight with those supply lines. They even had more technology and supplies at their disposal and still lost.

>you clearly don't know the objectives of either war

Oh sorry, I thought you guys wanted to stop communism, which you didn't do at all.

I guess your real objective was to piss about for several years and get as many of your guys killed and maimed as possible, for fun. My bad. Mission accomplished.

By that logic, I guess you also won in Iraq and Afghanistan because there's technically a quasi democracy there.

>out-gunned and outmanned and out teched
You mean like the british during your war of independence?.....Do you see wtf I'm getting at here?

>South Korea not a resounding success
Wow, really makes you think...
youtu.be/io32SnyhYpM?t=10195

We not only stopped communism, but South Korea became a thriving democracy and first world nation in the East. South Vietnam was also secured as an independent democratic state. What's hard to understand about this? We achieved victory and then a later administration chose not to back up our South Vietnamese ally.

Communism spread to three countries in the East and everywhere else was halted. In China and North Korea it was already there, and in South Vietnam it spread only because of negligence. Halted in your pathetic country, Indonesia, etc.

South Korea has a real democracy, this is not comparable.

No I don't see wtf you're getting there, the British were far better armed and had far more material resources and command of the seas. The whole American economy was based on industrial dominance by Britain and we had to make due with melting down British-produced products like church bells to produce arms and still won.

How do you even fuck up this badly?

The objective of the UN was not to keep South Korea around. It was to unify both Koreas (same objective as in Vietnam) Guess what? You didn't achieve that objective, in either war. You lost.

Nice lie, the Korean war stated because the communists crossed the 38th parallel and invaded the south, attempting to unify the country under dictatorship. The UN retaliated with the aim of containing combat to Korea—which it did—and the eventual goal of keeping communism confined and not spread, which it also achieved.

The goal was, quite literally, to keep South Korea around. We won. Same story in Vietnam.

The big difference is that NK was a puppet of USSR. North Vietnam was seen as a repeat of the Korean conflict, but the NV were more anti-colonial force.

Vietnam was a natural enemy of USSR and China. That's why the conflict was just a big misunderstanding.

>The UN retaliated with the aim of containing combat to Korea—which it did—and the eventual goal of keeping communism confined and not spread, which it also achieved.

nope

"On 11 September—four days before the Inchon Landing—the president adopted the arguments of the JCS. Most importantly, Truman changed the national objective from saving South Korea to unifying the peninsula. "

encyclopedia.com/topic/Korean_War.aspx


and then :


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

Result: North Vietnamese victory

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Peace_Accords

Wow really makes you think! We achieved peace which ensured the territorial integrity of the South. The south of the country was only lost because subsequent administrations did not retaliate to northern aggression and permitted them to invade unabated, throwing away our hard-fought victory.

What do these plainly obvious facts have to do with anything?

>The south of the country was only lost because subsequent administrations did not retaliate

oh, you mean,like, you gave up? I'm sorry, my English isn't so good, sometimes.

What do we call people who give up again?

I think we call them "losers"

You're delusional if you think America achieved its military objectives in Vietnam. You lost that one. Korea was a tie.

You do know that another resolution was passed making the war aim a negotiated settlement between north and south right? After some successes and deep pushes into northern territory they thought it would be achievable but changed course after Red China through in everything it could. It wasn't worth gambling a world war over a unified Korea.

>Wiki says the north won
Wow I guess it's just so then! Nope, they invaded the south AFTER the war was concluded in a separate act of aggression.

>Vietnam was a natural enemy of USSR and China
China yes, but the USSR was an extremely valuable ally to Vietnam. Without Soviet arms manufacturers and military advisers I'm not sure they could have won the war.

>After some successes and deep pushes into northern territory they thought it would be achievable but changed course after Red China through in everything it could.

So again, you gave up. I think you're confused. It seems you are arguing for my side.

>semantics win war objectives
typical burger, so full of shit

>The north opens a new war after agreeing with the international community to peace agreements
Wow I guess the US lost a war it wasn't even involved in!

Korea isn't a "tie," is there unified DPRK, syrup-slurper? UN/US victory.

And South Nam was a victory as well idiot.

>Wow I guess the US lost a war it wasn't even involved in!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon

I guess losing the capital city of the country you're trying to protect counts as "winning" to Americans

>beating russia at sea
>an impressive military action

pick one and only one, russia has never given a fuck about it's navy

You're full of shit if you think the peace accords weren't the mark of victory. Praise Kissinger.

The north re-invaded and the Ford administration chose not to take up the fight. This is a failure of American policy but it doesn't negate our victory in the Vietnam war.

>is there unified DPRK, syrup-slurper?

Is there a unified ROK, burger-mucher?

The Korean DMZ dividing commie north and freedom loving south is the result of the stalemate (tie) that was created by the standoff in Korea between China and us (yes, syrupniggers fought in Korea, not Nam though). Western forces remain in Korea keep that status quo. There was no such stalemate in 'Nam, there are no Western forces there now, BECAUSE YOU FUCKING LOST

They beat them on land and the Ivans sent an entire navy to teach them a lesson which was surrendered after a day of combat.

>You're full of shit if you think the peace accords weren't the mark of victory.

No, this is not a picture of Americans fleeing for their lives at the approaching enemy. It is actually a picture of total tactical victory by Americans.

That wasn't our war aim, ladyboy-renter.

We contained communism and ensured freedom for the south, mission accomplished. The same was done in Vietnam, however a left-wing government removed American forces and left the south to fend for itself when a new act of aggression cam from the north.

that's like arguing that you beat morbid obesity because you achieved your weigh loss goals for one day, than celebrating your """victory""" by ordering KFC and drinking malt liquor for a whole week, which eventually makes you gain all your weight back

Thanks liberals! Again, a failure of American policy to not take up the fight, but not a loss of the war which led to the Paris accords.

>Vietnam was a natural enemy of USSR and China.

Which explains the MASSIVE amount of arms, supplies, training, and machinery sent by those two countries to vietnam..

A victory nonethless.

Yes, it was, it was already established and you literally admitted that you guys gave up the objective because you feared the Chinese as you said here >After some successes and deep pushes into northern territory they thought it would be achievable but changed course after Red China through in everything it could.

In shorter terms: "We gave up because the Chinese were kicking our asses"

>mission accomplished
That wasn't the fucking mission, we don't pat ourselves on the back for a stalemate, stop being a nigger. We didn't win Korea and that is why North Korea still exists, it was a stalemate.

>The same was done in Vietnam
No it wasn't, that why's commies took over Vietnam. You can blame liberals but your country's objective of supporting French colonialism and keeping communism out of Vietnam simply did not happen. Compartmentalizing different battles and the political narrative that went with them to console your national ego is, frankly, pathetic.

>avoiding escalation of the conflict into a civil war by making the objective the 38th parallel
Wow, really thinking right now! Realigning the war aims to preserve the previous border was better policy than a protracted war with red China and potential involvement by a nuclear power.

Those are mostly vietnamese, dumbass.

>B-But at least we were moral!

The sound of someone losing

It's really pathetic that you have to expand your perception of our war aims to put us on the side of colonialism to make us look blundering and incompetent. Just face it, we achieved a peace which recognized South Vietnam's sovereignty, this cannot be denied. It's a matter of fact that dirty tricks and flagrant disregard for international law by the north after a settled peace are the only reason the south was occupied. Deny all you want but we won that peace.

>wins diplomatic concessions
>removes military backing
>feigns surprised when the now virtually unopposed commies take over anyway
>claims victory
pls

Creating highly successful liberal democracies in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea isn't losing, it's a smashing success. The USSR however just stole rail lines, executed mass expulsions from Karafuto and those islands, and created dictatorships.

>Thanks liberals!

for what? For you losing? Are you actually admitting now???

I don't understand, why don't you simply "change objectives" for this argument? Move the goalposts, I think is what it's called and then you can claim a victory. It's what you guys are good at, after all.

yes

Victory came by the settlement. Ford abandoned the country. Been said already.

It's like if you spend blood and treasure building a great dam. The waterline gets nice and high on the dammed side of the river, a great success. Big league.

Then, someone blows up the dam. Is it not still a fact you made a big beautiful bridge? No.

That's not how winning wars works.

Hitler was occupying much of Europe, before he fucking wasn't.

For refusing to arm the south and enter the conflict created by the invasion of the south.

It's a shame though, ships are fucking cool, I don't see why our ancestors didn't care for them so much.

And Hitler beat the Dutch, French, etc. He lost to different opponents, the British, us, the commies.

The US won the settlement along with South Vietnam and called it a day. The south then lost a separate conflict with the north.

The topic at hand here is whether the Soviets rekt the Japanese or not. Since you cannot talk about anything but "muh virtue", it means that your side of the argument has lost.

>The south then lost a separate conflict
You are delusional. We are finished talking, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Well they most certainly didn't wreck the Japs. All the elite fighting forces and armour were moved to other spheres of battle, leaving behind an under-armed shell of the Kwantang army, with many of the ranks not even filled by Japanese. The Ruskies were walking into a "fight" with an already demoralized, depleted, and rapidly collapsing fighting force.

Nice argument.

cbc.ca/radio/rewind/the-vietnam-war-canada-s-role-part-one-1.3038110

Guess you lost too canada..

Thanks for letting us test Agent orange on your population though!

>Realigning the war aims to preserve the previous border was better policy than a protracted war with red China

"Realigning the war aims" That's fucking golden. I have to remember that one. Very elegant way of saying "giving up" but in such a way as to not damage one's pride.

Keep denying it buddy. I mean at least learn a little history and try again.

>We are finished talking, and may God have mercy on your soul

Very mature.

I thought it was common knowledge that the Paris peace accords ended the Vietnam War and a few years later the north invaded in a later conflict.

Almost as nice as your truly insane argument for neatly separating the Vietnam war into totally separate, 100% unrelated conflicts, all just so you don't have to admit an American loss...

Yeah Canadians were kind of "involved" in Iraq in similar ways, but in both cases our government did not commit to the war.

You're missing the point, fellow burger.

This discussion is about irrelevant countries making themselves feel big by insulting the GREATEST NATION ON EARTH!

>the Paris peace accords ended the Vietnam War
Even back then people knew better than this... jesus christ

youtube.com/watch?v=aSZosqXOyc0

k

You are making excuses

In 1904-5 the Japanese attacked a weakly supplied army in Vladivostok that was overstretched because the trans-siberian railway wasn't complete yet and the defense of which was heavily reliant on a completely over-speculated fleet

You wanted to start this thread because >muh humiliation, >muh total defeat, but war isn't like that. Go for a walk.

The Paris Peace Accords were as follows:

U.S. your forces must leave. North Vietnam forces you can stay.

Americans call this "victory"

After reading about nanking I don't trust Japs anymore. I mean even serial killers would probably say "that shit sounds fucked up" as to what they did to people there.

Those sadistic genes passed down to their kids. I don't trust these fuckers.

I don't really care about admitting American loss. It's not a conflict I think my country should have been involved in considering the peculiar facts about Vietnam, including it's enmity towards China the fact that communism took a very different form than in traditionally red countries, and the the measure of victory had more to do with body counts than territorial gains or conventional aims.

That being said we still won the war. The fact that the north shredded the peace deal and invaded again after the conclusion of the war is a no "100% separate" but still an isolated incident nonetheless.

>normie tv as an argument
Ain't clicking that shiiet.

>we weren't REALLY trying.

Not to be an ass, but you're moving goalposts now aren't you?

Your country was comitted to stopping the spread of communism in south east asia (even if it was unofficial), and it failed in that respect.

..and all you got was this lousy T-shirt (and cancer from all the agent orange).

No, just >muh humiliation, getting cucked by at that time a third rate power and the first major European defeat to a non-white country. It was hugely humiliating.

Tell yourself that all the die-hards literally died hard and so the genes have been cleansed leaving only peaceable workaholics who die from being salarymen.

>I don't really care about admitting American loss.

LOL you agreed to leave without conditions for North Vietnamese troops to leave the south, without them disbanding or disarming or anything of the sort.

You can fool your own people, maybe but the rest of us know what it was in reality; a total surrender and withdrawal by the United States but in such a way as to save you some face.

So now you're trying to use the peace agreement as a basis for saying America lost? That's just cute desu. If we get in a fight with friends and agree to go our separate ways and then you slug my buddy in the face, you didn't beat me up idiot. Keep grasping at straws commie.

Lol.

Once vietnam has finished annexing cambodia -they'll come for ya'll, and you will absolutely BEG for American military intervention once they start slaughtering you monkies.

>So now you're trying to use the peace agreement as a basis for saying America lost?

Are you saying that leaving with your tail between your legs with enemy troops still present in the South is anything but surrender and withdrawal?

A country that proved itself with impressive growth and progress, and which everyone assumed to be niggers until they had a chance to show themselves in this fight.

What's your point again?

Why? So you can strike up another "peace agreement" where Vietnamese forces are still bearing down on the capital as you leave?

I'd rather take chances with the Chinese.

Same argument would point out that you did not win either.

And if we consider that you wasted tons of ressources, caused an internal conflict which forced you to bow your head to hippie degenerates and got humiliated by commies on international scale, I would very much say that you have lost, maybe not the war, but you lost.

Are you fucking retarded? (You are.)

So your argument has shifted now to where the very idea of a peace agreement is capitulation.

Wow to let the point go right past you. Sure it was kick-ass for the Japs, but in Europe Russia was laughed at for basically losing to monkeys and getting so salty they sent an entire naval fleet to get slaughtered. Take your medicine, it will help you.

Oh what's this:
The Paris peace agreements of 1973 were in effect a surrender. Any agreement that left North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam meant the eventual takeover of South Vietnam. We knew this from North Vietnam's failure to comply with past agreements.

- Dean Rusk Sec. of State

libguides.law.uga.edu/c.php?g=177212&p=1164830

It seems your own Sec.of State during the period agrees with me.

post more

I'm only saying we didn't lose the war desu.

You did, sorry

Versailles was also a peace agreement, yet it is agreed upon that Germany lost.

>worse national humiliation
jewish revolution and worshipping semi-literate georgian
not even negro potus comes close to this

So the viets can't keep their word, big BIG surprise buddy.

Cute desu

Except we achieved our aims and weren't forced into an agreement. Tell me about the Vietnamese naval blockade along our coasts.

>Implying vietnam would allow china to stick its nose in their buisness.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

>viets can't keep their word, big surprise

and yet you still pulled out with no provisions that the North evacuate their troops from the South, while yours did.

I wish I could say your delusion was cute but it's more sad if anything tbqh