In article <a9pom5-ee6.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
s.bez_spamu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> nobody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:29:51 GMT, Robert Redelmeier
> > <redelm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> Alternatively, the US might be considered to have repaid its'
> >> debt to France by [late] involvent in WW1. So well repaid
> >> it allowed France to achieve a truly Pyrrhic victory.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Robert
> >
> > Yeah, 1918.
> > And before that, some smaller times - like cleaning up the
> > Mediterranean from Arab pirates.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Barbary_War
> >
> > And then in 1944 (arguably - it's possible to say Stalin already was
> > winning regardless of Allies' involvement).
> >
> > And then, beyond any arguments, 1945. Only the presence in Europe of
> > US Army - and especially USAF, the dreaded Flying Fortresses capable
> > of carrying just-invented nukes
>
> Nukes were not invented yet (but soon).
Not to mention that the Flying Fortress (B17) was never nuke capable
(way too small). Super Forttress (B29), I think he meant.
> And initial production capacity was small.
How many do you think were needed? ;-) AIUI, the Manhattan Project
wasn't just a research toy, but they built a full production line.
The whole reason Pt was favored over U235 was the mass production
capabilities, even though the bomb design was much more difficult.
Pt is relatively easy to produce in large quantities. U235 is quite
difficult. They were capable of producing a Pt bomb about every
three weeks That would have been enough to ruin anyone's day at the
time.
> > - made Stalin stop his tanks at Elbe
> > River, even though there were plans to go beyond - to Paris and Rome
> > where Maurice Thorez and Palmiro Togliatti were waiting, ready to form
> > "People's" governments. All the way to Madrid, Lisbon, and London.
> > Zhukov - and he knew a thing or two about winning battles - insisted
> > that the Soviets were capable of winning it all, but Stalin decided
> > otherwise.
>
> And in fact there were plans to do so from the western side as well.
> Patton also knew a thing or two about winning battles - insisted that
> the Americans together with their allies were capable of winning it all,
> but Truman decided otherwise.
Patton had the strategy, the question was whether the logistics were
there. The other generals thought he'd already outstripped his
supply line (so made sure he couldn't go further).
> So both sides considered attack on each other, yet both decided to to do
so.
not? ^
Obviously. ;-)
> >
> > And then, how many times during the Cold War? What the Soviets were
> > capable off they've shown in 1967 by "pacifying" the Chechs in a
> > matter of hours.
>
> TBE, it was 1968. and Soviets were practically not directly involved --
> they sent their allies from People Republics of Germany, Poland and
Hungary.
Being a little pedantic, don't ya think?
--
Keith
|
