Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AK2004 who wrote (36089)	8/6/2002 3:36:42 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi albert kovalyov; Re: "Steve are you talking about the same Eastern Front that tied close to 10 million German soldiers ... If Germany would decide to invade England the best case scenario is that it would put more resistance than France." No, the worst case scenario is that there would have been 10 million German bodies floating, drowned, in the cold North Sea. Germany's problem with assaulting England was that they had no way to get there. *Invading islands is impractical without control of the sea.* War is mostly about logistics. This also is why Taiwan has remained independent for 50 years, despite being right next to China. -- Carl

To: AK2004 who wrote (36089)	8/6/2002 4:52:47 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

While I certainly agree that Russia was not a "side-show", it certainly didn't involve 10 million German soldiers. Heck, I don't believe that the 3 individual Army Groups (north, central, and south) ever consisted of more than 3 million troops all told. And certainly not in the later parts of the war. angelfire.com But the Soviet Union did carry the greatest burden of the fighting for much of the war. And he bitterly complained that the US and Brits were willing to permit the bleeding of "mother Russia", while waiting until they had all the cards in their hands to conduct a cross-channel invasion. And tyrant that Stalin was, I think he was absolutely correct that we were content to see both sides bleed themselves on the Steppes of Russia. Btw, while Stalin DID purge his general staff, he was not "disarming" his army. The appearance of the HIGHLY superior T-34 in 1941, a tank better than anything the German's possessed, is evidence that he was preparing Russia for an eventual invasion of Germany. The non-agression pact with Hitler was merely an opportunity to gain some free land, clean up the national boundaries, and bide their time until they were sufficiently capable of launching their own attack upon Hitler. Map of pre-WWII Poland showing deep salient into Russia territory and how they were able to drastically shorten their borders with Germany. freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com Now, of course, Stalin later annexed the Baltic states which further shortened his border permitting him to concentrate more of his army within a smaller boundary. Hawk