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

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
...Sorry my friend, but the Soviets were putting out feelers for a negotiated settlement prior to Stalingrad. Had 7th Army wheeled east and crossed the river, the war in Russia would probably have ended that fall. West of the Urals would have been Germany’s and the Soviets would have kept everything to the east. Stalin would have gotten a new neck tie, and history would have been different.

This is nonsense. Stalin would never capitulate in 1942. Fall of 41 - may be. And it was 6th Army.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:

quote:

---

Unknown_Enemy I believe Oleg was talking about the number of missles vs SDI. Well that is what I read from it. So with not enough missles their program becomes obsolete vs SDI.

I read again Oleg's post and I am not sure.
But in doubt, I edited/deleted my previous post.

---

I missed your first Posts What I mean is if SDI can shoot down for example 100 missiles, China' nuclear arsenal would become useless, they have only dozens or so missiles. Not sure about France, it may have more missiles.

This is the major problem with SDI, IMHO. It may prompt creation of more nukes then there is now on the Earth.

---

You guys need to think it through a little further. If 1000 ICBM fly and all get shot down, the human race has very few years to live. All of that material will contaminate the atmosphere. And Plutonium is the deadliest substance known to man. SDI if for the third world bastards like North Korea. It will remove much of the power they expected to gain from deploying their weapons.

SDI is already deployed by the way. The new Standard II missile has the ability to catch and shoot down ICBM during early boost. So long as the distance between the launch points is short and detections is immediate. The Standard III will extend the range quite a bit, but will still require rapid deployment on launch notice. A look at the sea around Korea will show a couple of Aegis cruisers, they are not just there to piss the NK’s off.

The main thing that SDI is doing for now, is funding research. The first beam weapons will probably come from this work. America has about a 10-20 year lead in weapons systems over the rest of the world. This gap will replace our atomic warheads as the deterrent of the next fifty years and beyond.

BTW, did any of you catch the commissioning of the Ronald Reagan a few weeks ago? It is a little strange to look at with its redesigned island.

[ July 27, 2003, 01:54: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[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.

[oleg]

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]

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]

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

[oleg]

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]

It was a symbol, thats why.

[Thermodyne]

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.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It was a symbol, thats why.

It was a strategic city and a political liability. Had the Germans moved swiftly and bypassed the city, after reducing it of course, the defeat would have been tremendous for the Soviets. The loss of the troops in theater would have been bad, but the loss of the troops in route would have been worse. If the Germans kept moving, it would have been very difficult to mass them. The key point of the theater is that 6th army would have been done in the south, and free to drive on Moscow. Also, it would have appeared to the Soviets that they could not stop the Germans, even after Stalin had given an ultimatum for the city to hold. There is only so much defeat that a nation will stand for, even a communist nation. The party grip on the army did not extend all that far down into the conscript ranks.

A minor point on the battle, it was the Italians that folded and allowed the Soviets to flank 6th to the north, then the Romanians folded in the south. By then the weather did not allow the German air power and mechanized mobility to become a factor. Not to mention that German armor was rotting in pastures while the crews fought as infantry. The Italians and Romanians should have been in the city mopping up while 6th was across the river acting as an anvil for army group south. 6th did actually put pathfinders across the river early on, but the opportunity to cross in mass was allowed to slip away.