OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

Thermodyne · #1 July 27th, 2003, 03:06 AM

I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.

oleg · #2 July 27th, 2003, 04:55 AM

No question, total nuclear war is the end of the mankind. I know very well the actual reason behind SDI is a noble one and has nothing to do with underminding the world security. However, that can become a side effect and a very serious one. OK, US will become secure against Noth Korea missiles.
But take a place of Chinese Gensek (sorry, don't know his name). How can he be sure it was not just a ruse to nullify China' arsenal ?? His first and totally justified reaction would be to review and modernize his nuclear deterrant.

oleg · #3 July 27th, 2003, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.

Hmm, can you please give a link ? After all, Comic Ali statements are public documents now

Battle of Stalingrad was an important moment in WWII, but its fall could not imperill USSR in a bit. I was born not far from Stalingrad (300 miles up the Volga river). There is NOTHING to the east from Stalingrad. Just Kazakh steppe with the population density of Australia Nothern Territories. There is no reason whatsoever to surrender.

Just take it into perspective: suppose Germany build a bridge to US or dry out Atlantic. In the first year, US heroicaly defends Washington and New York but lose Boston and Atlanta. Next year, Germany changes the direction, capture Atlanta and attack Saint Louis (sp. sorry.) The rational is of course to cut off the Texas oil fields. Once Germans crosses Mississipi, American President sidently surrende all states East from the river and moves to LA. Does it makes any sense whatsoever ???

BTW, Caspian oil was extremely important for 3rd Reich but not as much as to USSR. Tatarstan and Bashkirstan oil was at plenty. Loss of Stalingrad would have a very small effect on the Russian economy in 1942.

[ July 27, 2003, 04:17: Message edited by: oleg ]

Fyron · #4 July 27th, 2003, 06:32 AM

The loss of Stalingrad would have had a much more psychological effect on the Russian people, not an economic one.

oleg · #5 July 27th, 2003, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The loss of Stalingrad would have had a much more psychological effect on the Russian people, not an economic one.

Ohh, why ? Only because it has Stalin name ? Stalingrad by itself was just another ordinarily average city. Nothing compared to Minsk, Kiev or Kharkov. It got its place in the history not because either its capture or heroic defence would be the turning point in the war but because it is the site of the most crushing and painfull defeat of Wermacht. From what I know, the loss of Kiev in August 41 was the worst blow. By the end of 42 loss or recapture of another city become almost routine news. War sucks.

Fyron · #6 July 27th, 2003, 07:36 AM

It was a symbol, thats why.

Thermodyne · #7 July 27th, 2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:
Originally posted by Thermodyne:
I stand corrected it was 6th Army. But the documents are public now, go check the Archives. The Soviet government was putting the pieces in place for a negotiated peace. When the British found out they came screaming to Washington.

Hmm, can you please give a link ? After all, Comic Ali statements are public documents now

Battle of Stalingrad was an important moment in WWII, but its fall could not imperill USSR in a bit. I was born not far from Stalingrad (300 miles up the Volga river). There is NOTHING to the east from Stalingrad. Just Kazakh steppe with the population density of Australia Nothern Territories. There is no reason whatsoever to surrender.

Just take it into perspective: suppose Germany build a bridge to US or dry out Atlantic. In the first year, US heroicaly defends Washington and New York but lose Boston and Atlanta. Next year, Germany changes the direction, capture Atlanta and attack Saint Louis (sp. sorry.) The rational is of course to cut off the Texas oil fields. Once Germans crosses Mississipi, American President sidently surrende all states East from the river and moves to LA. Does it makes any sense whatsoever ???

BTW, Caspian oil was extremely important for 3rd Reich but not as much as to USSR. Tatarstan and Bashkirstan oil was at plenty. Loss of Stalingrad would have a very small effect on the Russian economy in 1942.

Army group south would have crossed and driven into the flank of the soviets massed in front of 6th. With no room to move, it would not have been good for the soviets. Then 6th would have been in position to drive north and attack moscow from the south east as the froces in front of the city drive west. A good general could have made a fight of it, but this was not the issue. Stalin was not secure in Moscow. Saving his government had become more important than winning the war. In the end, the US gave him billions of dollars in aid, so that he would continue the fight. Many of the items sent were valued at pennies on the dollar so that the US people would not realize how much was being sent.

Sorry, the US archives are not on line, but I will look up my notes and forward them.