posted
What I'm saying is that some people are trying to lay this on Bush II, but the truth is it's always been this way. That you didn't know that is not the fault of this administration.
I stayed out of the other thread because I was ASKED to politely, and unlike some other people, I actually made an effort to comply.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Headline from the Telegraph (I'm not joking here): 'Blair is Bush's Lewinsky.' If it's in the Telegraph it must be true .
Actually on the 'first strike' thing, American policy in the late 40s was, if the Soviets invaded Western Europe or even if the US decided the Soviet Union needed to be disposed of (a popular view at the time, Gen. Patton wanted to take his army 'On to Moscow' when Germany surrendered) was that a nuclear blitz accross Eastern Europe and into the Soviet heartland. There was (as you can imagine) concern about this policy in many European counties, one observer said that Washington was prepared to fight the USSR 'to the last German'.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Given that the USSR didn't have any nuclear capability at the time, it would have been the best time to do that.. of course, the US only had two bombs at that time, as well, and we'd already used them.
I've heard historians argue for both the positive and negative aspects such an attack might have had. It might have destroyed Communism... or it might have bogged the US/Other allies down in the deadly Russian winter.
From the number of troops that the Russians had sacrificed to make their gains, though, the poor shape that they were in (not to mention the famous story about the first Russian troops arriving in Berlin, and mistaking a flush toilet bowl for a sink) it's possible that they might have been pushed back. We'll never know.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
If you thought the ruskies were backwards in world war two. In world war one they had to charge the german lines just to get some clothes, and bullets, the average russian soldier during world war one usually only got 5 or 6 bullets, it was up to them to scavenge more, either from dead soldiers, or stealing them from thier own troops. I wonder how they managed to fight the germans for as long as they did. and i'm surprised there wasn't a german flag flying from the (then) capital of St. Petersburg.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Given that the USSR didn't have any nuclear capability at the time, it would have been the best time to do that..
That was the point...
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm sorry. I should have started my own thread. It's a shame to close yours.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged