Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "There are no Homosexuals in my country.

[Jenny_Jackson]

We ALONE had the atomic bomb in 1945.

James,

The plans for an atomic bomb have been available in University libraries since the early thirties. In fact, the Russians were in the process of building one when the war ended in 1945.

The Germans were distilling "heavy water" to build their own in 1944.

It's not a matter of knowing how to build one, it's a matter of having the technological know-how (which was available), equipment (which the Manhatten Progect had to design and build) and the financial resources committed to produce an atomic weapon.

We had the only "atomic bomb in 1945" only because we committed enough resources in a place that was secure from attack at the time, not because we were the only ones who could and would have built one.

The idea of the Iranians having an atomic weapon is a lot less frieghtening to me than the idea that GWB would actually attack Iran to make sure they don't have one.

If the administration really wants to stop international terrorism, they should be looking at their friends, the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia. That's where the money that funds terrorism is coming from.

 

[trysail]

We ALONE had the atomic bomb in 1945.

You are now (officially) scaring me. Are you seriously suggesting we should have reduced Russia to a smoking, radioactive wasteland while we had the chance (assuming we even had the ability to do so, which is itself doubtful)?

While I admire Churchill and Patton, it was, after all, Churchill who once quipped in self-defense that, "I have not always been wrong." The reason behind that defensive remark was the fact that, notwithstanding his many successes, he was also responsible for one of modern military history's greatest debacles (Gallipoli)- not to mention his involvement in the Sykes-Picot treaty which drew the border lines of today's Middle East in an essentially random manner (and we're still paying the price for that little exercise of bad judgment!)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JENNY JACKSON

The Russians didnt explode their bomb until 1948 or 49. It was about then that we exploded the first hydrogen bomb. But the fact remains we had a functional bomb long before the Russians did.

Do you understand that it wont be Bush who attacks Iran? Israel will do it. And when Israel does the Arabs will put a cork in the oil bottle for Europe. As much as I dislike Dubya, the US is exactly where it needs to be to keep a lid on the Middle East. And when Bush is gone, and Hillary is President, we'll still be in Iraq.

TRYSAIL

Its always good to destroy your enemies.

 

[oggbashan]

Picking up a couple of points from recent posts.

1. In 1945 the Red Army was the most powerful land force ever known and was battle-hardened. By that year USSR production of military supplies was meeting all their needs and was safe from German attack. The US and Britain supplied much war material to USSR but it was only ever a small proportion of their total material. The difficulties of transport meant that the USSR had to build its own and by 1945 it was.

2. In 1945 the US had enough material for possibly four atomic bombs. One was used in the test, two were dropped on Japan and perhaps one more could have been produced. After that, there would have been an 18 month to two year gap before enough fissionable material would be available.

3. Yes, Churchill admitted failure at Gallipoli. However, if those on the spot had followed his plans, it is arguable that his strategy could have succeeded. His intention was that obsolete battleships should force The Dardenelles and the survivors of the passage should threaten or actually bombard Istanbul.

The French and Royal Navies insisted on using modern non-expendable battleships and panicked when the most successful marine minefield in Naval History damaged their precious toys. The naval attack withdrew when the Turkish gunners had virtually shot their last salvo. A few more rounds of naval gunfire and the ships might have been through.

If the land attack had been carried out in secrecy and in the right place and followed up immediately where resistance was weak, the allied troops could have cut the penisula in two on the first day.

The stakes were high. If Turkey could have been forced out of the war the Austro-Hungarian empire might have been assisted to collapse, bringing WWI to an early end and avoiding the continuing slaughter on the Western Front.

The strategy was sound. The possible rewards were worth the effort. The direction of the battle on the ground was appallingly bad. Whether the admirals and generals of 1915 were capable of implementing such a strategy? That alone might have been Churchill's mistake. He couldn't choose the commanders. Many WWII commanders could have implemented the attack on Gallipoli and succeeded. The 1915 mindset couldn't.

Og

 

[shereads]

It was and is, a rather lucid post, spontaneous or not, concerning the evolution of the United States into a default position as policeman of the world.


Amicus...

You were in favor of Clinton's intervention in Bosnia, right? The one that didn't have disastrous consequences because it was conducted intelligently? Good for you. That policeman-of-the-world business really annoyed other members of the right wing, including GWB, who saw Clinton's interference in Eastern Europe's genocide as an irresponsible use of America's military resources.

I'm glad to see you weren't marching in lockstep with the right-wing anti-interventionists. Remember when they demanded that Clinton provide a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops? He was unfit to be Commander in Chief, they said. Because he avoided service in Vietnam.

The moral absolutes of the right wing are remarkably flexible, aren't they?

Since you broke ranki with the right on Bosnia, you must be really frustrated by our failure to intervene in Darfur.

Good for you!

I was afraid, when I read your response to my first post, that you had deliberately misconstrued objections to the Iraq invasion as anti-interventionism. Nothing could be farther from the truth, at least not in my case.

I supported the Bosnia effort, and would have liked to see it sooner, but understood the necessity of building a concensus. I supported the Afghanistan invasion as a response to 9/11, and would continue to support that effort if it hadn't been abandoned, the country left to the mercy of drug lords, and all mentions of Osama Bin Laden in Bush's speeches replaced with Saddam Hussein.

I would, if I had been in favor of invading rogue nations with weapons of mass destruction, have preferred to choose one that admitted having a nuclear weapons program. There was at least one, if you'll recall, who all but begged us to notice their weapons program.

I would, if told, "We must invade another country besides Afghanistan, to discoruage this Jihad business once and for all," have suggested that it not be one with a secular government. There was no shortage of tyrannies to overturn. Attacking the one that Bin Laden wanted out of his way seemed really, really stupid as a response to Bin Laden's attack on the U.S.

As it turns out, it was stupid. Stupid, disastrous and inexcusably irresponsible. Being able to see that doesn't make me anti-interventionist. It makes me anti-stupidity and anti-suicidal.

Not that you'll ever admit there'a a distinction.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Og is right on all points. I'll venture this: If Patton had "kept going" there would have been the Gotterdammerung of all time with millions of combatants killed, and the U.S. would have lost. It was a long time before we had more nukes, like a two years maybe, and even with a few it would not have mattered, because the battlefield would have been so massive that taking out a few tens-of-thousands here or there would not have mattered.

Yes, the US had massive stategic air power, but the Russkies were probably tops in ground support, and that would have been important.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

NO. Just destroy their command and control.

The principal reason our Civil War was fought in Virginia was because of each side's command and control centers. When the US captured Richmond the war over. Had Lee captured Washington the war would have been over. Thats why Gettysburg was so decisive. If Lee had gone over Cemetery Ridge there was nothing between him and Washington.

A hydrogen bomb in a couple or three places, and Russia would not be able to organize any kind of response to the American attack.

 

[trysail]

I think taking on Russia after defeating Germany in WWII would have been a gargantuan strategic mistake. That ignores the indisputable fact that the U.S. population would have gone berserk if we'd even attempted something as hare-brained as that. The U.S. had done enough "world saving" then and it's done too damn much "world saving" ever since. All the lessons of history suggest that people have to liberate themselves; it can't be done for them.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TRYSAIL

Americans didnt go beserk when Truman confronted Russia over Berlin in 1948.

Americans didnt go beserk when we became involved in the Korean War in 1950.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

TRYSAIL

Here's a suggestion. Elect me Emperor of America and we'll never save another country again. We'll conquer the world. One nation every year, beginning with Canada.

 

[trysail]

TRYSAIL
Americans didnt go beserk when Truman confronted Russia over Berlin in 1948.
Americans didnt go beserk when we became involved in the Korean War in 1950.

That's beside the point and I don't want to belabor it; the point is that going into Russia would have been nuts. Nine time zones wide? You have got to be kidding me. In any event, this whole discussion is moot.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

ROXANNE

NO. Just destroy their command and control.

The principal reason our Civil War was fought in Virginia was because of each side's command and control centers. When the US captured Richmond the war over. Had Lee captured Washington the war would have been over. Thats why Gettysburg was so decisive. If Lee had gone over Cemetery Ridge there was nothing between him and Washington.

A hydrogen bomb in a couple or three places, and Russia would not be able to organize any kind of response to the American attack.

The hydrogen bomb was not invented until around 1952. As Og pointed out, the US was fresh out of bomb ingredients after August 1945, and it was a couple years before we had more. An "on to Moscow" campaign would have been a pure ground war. The Russians had better tanks. Their air-to-ground capability was the equal of our own, if not superior. They had been relocating and dispersing manufacturing and infrastructure east of the Urals for three years - I don't think Moscow was Richmond in 1945 (it might have been in 1941). The US stategic air arm would have been a capability in search of a mission in that environment.

It's all beside the point anyway, because the US and Britain are democracies, and their populations would not have accepted a continuation war. It was Miller-time in the States and on the Isle, and nothing was going to get between the people and their vacation from history for a few years. The rapidity of the demob demostrates this more forcefully than I can express.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

In late 1945 Russia was fighting the Japanese army for Manchuria. Russia re-deployed 40 divisions from Europe to Asia.

I'm guessing this is what Patton was thinking about.

But someone war-gamed World War III with Russia. Russia rolled across Germany and won most of the ground action for 3 weeks. Then it was stopped. Supply lines were too long. Eventually Russia lost all of Eastern Europe. Recall that Germany was manufacturing more armaments in the last year of the war than it did in the beginning. So the Luftwaffe and Wehrmach hit Russia hard once they were supplied with fuel and supplies. German war plants were still in production thruout the Balkan countries.

The Chinese attacked Russia (for obvious reasons). And the Japanese kept Russian forces tied up in Manchuria.

In 1949 America had 200 atomic bombs. Russia had ONE.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

ROXANNE

In late 1945 Russia was fighting the Japanese army for Manchuria. Russia re-deployed 40 divisions from Europe to Asia.

I'm guessing this is what Patton was thinking about.

But someone war-gamed World War III with Russia. Russia rolled across Germany and won most of the ground action for 3 weeks. Then it was stopped. Supply lines were too long. Eventually Russia lost all of Eastern Europe. Recall that Germany was manufacturing more armaments in the last year of the war than it did in the beginning. So the Luftwaffe and Wehrmach hit Russia hard once they were supplied with fuel and supplies. German war plants were still in production thruout the Balkan countries.

The Chinese attacked Russia (for obvious reasons). And the Japanese kept Russian forces tied up in Manchuria.

In 1949 America had 200 atomic bombs. Russia had ONE.

The discussion is about September, 1945, or perhaps May, 1946 - a continuation war. The US had no nukes. Which Chinese would attack Russia - Mao's or Chiang's? Answer: Neither, because they were focused on each other. Which Japanese kept the Russkies bottled up in Manchuria - the starvling, out-of-ammo Imperial Army? They were all washed up. The Luftwaffe might have had planes and we might have given them fuel, but their experienced pilots were all goo in smouldering holes on the steppe. How long would their 18 year olds and our magnificiently trained citizen-soldier pilots have been willing to fly into the charnel-house of ground-to-air attack against the Red Army? As I said, for our guys it was Miller-time. No war game can capture those real-world components.

 

[Handprints]

But someone war-gamed World War III with Russia...

As Trysail will no doubt attest, two of the best-functioning old-boy groups in finance are the WPPA (West Point Protective Association) and the Sandhurst Parish Council. Kill enough time with these chaps and you soon find out there are two words which can induce involuntary twitching as awful cadet memories (and later ones from General Staff courses) come flooding back: Fulda Gap.

I've no doubt that someone, somewhere has managed to produce a sand-table scenario that led to a Nato win, just as I've no doubt that people actually do win the lottery. The undisputed unanimity of opinion among every Nato member's senior military staff that the USSR could take - and hold - as much of Western Europe as it liked gave birth to the MAD doctrine.

I'll take the professionals' opinion on this one I think.

H

EDIT: I should have mentioned - you'd have been completely on your own, too. Even Britain under a constipated and hungover Churchill wouldn't have lifted a finger to help that effort. No country suffered more than Russia did at the hands of the Nazis; even under rationing, Europeans were sending care packages there.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

As Trysail will no doubt attest, two of the best-functioning old-boy groups in finance are the WPPA (West Point Protective Association) and the Sandhurst Parish Council. Kill enough time with these chaps and you soon find out there are two words which can induce involuntary twitching as awful cadet memories (and later ones from General Staff courses) come flooding back: Fulda Gap.

I've no doubt that someone, somewhere has managed to produce a sand-table scenario that led to a Nato win, just as I've no doubt that people actually do win the lottery. The undisputed unanimity of opinion among every Nato member's senior military staff that the USSR could take - and hold - as much of Western Europe as it liked gave birth to the MAD doctrine.

I'll take the professionals' opinion on this one I think.

H

EDIT: I should have mentioned - you'd have been completely on your own, too. Even Britain under a constipated and hungover Churchill wouldn't have lifted a finger to help that effort. No country suffered more than Russia did at the hands of the Nazis; even under rationing, Europeans were sending care packages there.

I think that's exactly right, with one minor qualification: Turning western Europe into glass would have stopped them, and any time from the early-mid 1950s there were enough nukes to do it.

 

[Handprints]

I think that's exactly right, with one minor qualification: Turning western Europe into glass would have stopped them, and any time from the early-mid 1950s there were enough nukes to do it.

I, for one, oppose any military activity which might potentially disrupt supplies of Sachertorte.

H

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HANDPRINTS AND ROXANNE

Tanks and trucks cant run on air. And Moscow is a long way from the Rhine. Supply-lines are always the problem.

The Japanese may have been nuthin much, but Stalin moved 40 divisions from Europe to deal with nuthin much.

Mao was no fan of Stalin. The Chinese and Russians have plenty of old grudges.

 

[Handprints]

HANDPRINTS AND ROXANNE
Tanks and trucks cant run on air. And Moscow is a long way from the Rhine. Supply-lines are always the problem.

Umm, weren't Allied supply-line problems one of the main reasons everyone was so happy to see the Russians pushing west?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HANDPRINTS

The distance from Moscow to Frankfurt is 1250 miles.

The distance from Frankfurt to the Rhine River is ZERO miles.

You forget America was supplying Russia with fuel for the tanks and trucks.

 

[Handprints]

You forget America was supplying Russia with fuel for the tanks and trucks.

My comment was aimed more specifically at US lines of supply. At a guess, Greece would have been the only European country in support of the US rolling forward into Poland and beyond. The rest would have ranged between officially neutral (ie get your tanks off my lawn) to actively hostile (ie get your fucking tanks off my lawn). Your supply lines would have disappeared unless you were willing to do the Western Europe what the Russians did in Eastern Europe from '42-'44.

I don't think for a moment you would have done that and, bluntly, I don't think you could have done that.

H

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HANDPRINTS

America was all over Europe in late 1945, and well into 1946. There were NO governments in most of the European countries.

 

[Handprints]

HANDPRINTS
There were NO governments in most of the European countries.

Do you seriously expect a European (like me) to accept such utter horseshit? Here ends my interest in your thoughts on this topic.

H

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HANDPRINTS

You might want to check the historical record for the facts.

 

[oggbashan]

HANDPRINTS

You might want to check the historical record for the facts.

So should you. <END>

Og