Stalins forces were exhausted by the time they reached Berlin. Possibly
they might have taken more of Germany but there's no way they would have reached the English Channel. The supply lines were incredibly extended by May 1945. And the Soviets did not have infinite resources.
Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those
weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.
The atomic bombing of Japan would be a better example to them.
Objectively, what is the difference?
I recall two photograph of a destroyed urban areas. One was
Hiroshima in 1945, the other was Seoul in 1951. "Which one was the
one more destroyed?"
OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese
surrender, would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would >rendezvous over Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air
Force could not intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do
but ,,,
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:11:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those
weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.
The atomic bombing of Japan would be a better example to them.
Objectively, what is the difference?
I recall two photograph of a destroyed urban areas. One was >>Hiroshima in 1945, the other was Seoul in 1951. "Which one was the
one more destroyed?"
I would imagine Seoul was in even worse shape in 1953 - nothing like
being capture by NK/Chinese troops - except having it happen twice
OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese
surrender, would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would >>rendezvous over Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air >>Force could not intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do
but ,,,
Would love a cite on that one
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:11:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those >>>>> weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.
The atomic bombing of Japan would be a better example to them.
Objectively, what is the difference?
I recall two photograph of a destroyed urban areas. One was Hiroshima
in 1945, the other was Seoul in 1951. "Which one was the one more
destroyed?"
I would imagine Seoul was in even worse shape in 1953 - nothing like being >>capture by NK/Chinese troops - except having it happen twice
OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese surrender,
would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would rendezvous over
Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air Force could not
intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do but ,,,
Would love a cite on that one
"So would I." I read voraciously and rarely if ever took notes.
"It was in a green book, towards the back half..." doesn't really help.
"So would I." I read voraciously and rarely if ever took notes.
"It was in a green book, towards the back half..." doesn't really
help.
Stalin knew very well that the US hadn't begun serial production of
atomic bombs.
Source?
Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman's white house. Where else? And then
along came the Rosenberg's and other fellow travelers. The Democrats
have never been loyal to America.
OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese
surrender, would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would >rendezvous over Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air >Force could not intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do
but ,,,
Would love a cite on that one
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 307 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 86:04:28 |
Calls: | 6,922 |
Files: | 12,382 |
Messages: | 5,433,614 |