Has there ever been a war in which both sides won? As in, they had different objectives and both could legitimately call it a win without it just being massive cope.
>>18508176The Cold War>The USSR's objective was to defeat European imperialism and de-colonize the world>America's objective was to dismantle any rival economic systems to achieve global financial supremacyTechnically both sides won and Europe lost
>>18508176the crusades, europe was saved after all
>>18508191>>The USSR's objective was to defeat European imperialism and de-colonize the world>implying they only cared about European and not American exploitation of brownsThat never happened though. "decolonization" amounted to little more than propping up Anerican-supported psychopaths vs commie appointed psychopaths. In the end, America secured dominance over markets and resources via local companies selling to them for cheap. The third world has never been self sufficient like commies envisioned them being. When America finally shits the bed and dies, the Chinese will carry on the tradition of scamming niggers and jeets for their labor or resources.
>>18508176WWII. Japan succeeded in decolonising the East and gaining respect from white countries. Hitler succeeded in being history's greatest school shooter.
>>18508176Greco-Persian Wars. Obviously after Alexander that changed, but for a solid century at least both sides could look at it as an overall victory without it being massive cope
>>18508176Winter war
the Winter War>Soviets want a buffer zone to make it harder for a country to attack Leningrad through Finland>Finns don't want to be reannexed into Russia>Soviets get their buffer zone (and are almost immediately proven right in wanting it when the nazis invade)>Finns stall the Soviets long enough after they carve out their zone to bring them to the table and stop total annexation
>>18508201Tell that to people from the Balkans
Usually this happens when one side wins short-term by means of immediate gains, and the other side wins long-term because its losses take over-extension away and make the state more compact and efficient.For instance, WW1 France had a much better army than France in 1870
>>18508491exactly, orthodox can't into crusades. the core of the modern Greek state were Ionian islands which didn't fall due to being ruled by Catholic Venice
>>18508176Vietnam >US succeeded in keeping SEA out of the Warsaw pact sphere of influence and wound up making an ally of convenience out of communist Vietnam >north Vietnam defeated South Vietnam
>>18508553>orthodox can't into crusadesI mean, the Crusade did come to the Orthodox...>the core of the modern Greek state were Ionian islands which didn't fall due to being ruled by Catholic VeniceThey were also administered by Protie Britain and they were not part of the first independent Greek state, soz
>>18508558>US succeeded in keeping SEA out of the Warsaw pact sphere of influenceDebatable.Vietnam was pro-Soviet, not pro-China, hence why after 1978 the US supported Pol Pot's guerillas in Vietnam-occupied KampucheaVietnam only became US-aligned several years after the fall of the USSR
>>18508565I would argue it wound up working both ways in the Americans favor on the one hand you basically crooked the Soviet Union into heavily arming a country in chinas underbelly, on the other after the war ended you exacerbated tension in the region by supporting pol pot driving the communist Vietnamese into staying on a war footing (and deterring China) until it was politically acceptable to reopen relations, and now theyre a stalwart of American politics in SEAis it evil to sacrifice lives for the sake of the geopolitical chessboard? probablybut did it work? yeah
>>18508229This.
>>18508558I said WITHOUT massive cope
