From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

"David Lesher" wrote in message news:qi484j$20g$1@reader2.panix.com...

Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:

Ways of not succeeding.

Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That would have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.

While I think there were many ways it could have failed, I doubt this one. First, did he release them when he did wake up? Second, they were [thanks
to Bodyguard, etc.] in the wrong place.

The Allies had worked hard to disable the rail network. A major issue
with German armour was they had weak transmissions. (If you road-marched
them 50 miles, you'd lose +30% on drive failures alone.) Further, you'd
use a lot of gasoline. And how many road bridges in the area could even carry a heavy tank?

Had D-Day failed, Stalin would have "liberated"
Europe all the way to the English Channel...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 15:05:05 -0500, Byker wrote:

"David Lesher" wrote in message news:qi484j$20g$1@reader2.panix.com...

Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> writes:

Ways of not succeeding.

Hitler could have woken up earlier and released Roman's tanks. That would
have been very bad for the lightly armed infantry.

While I think there were many ways it could have failed, I doubt this one. >> First, did he release them when he did wake up? Second, they were [thanks
to Bodyguard, etc.] in the wrong place.

The Allies had worked hard to disable the rail network. A major issue
with German armour was they had weak transmissions. (If you road-marched
them 50 miles, you'd lose +30% on drive failures alone.) Further, you'd
use a lot of gasoline. And how many road bridges in the area could even
carry a heavy tank?

I doubt that any of these proposed measures would have worked but the
weather might have gone badly South and this might have stopped D-Day.

Had D-Day failed, Stalin would have "liberated"
Europe all the way to the English Channel...

Let me make four observatins.



The allies would have tried again, which they did when they invaded South France.



The Allies were driving North from Italy without D-Day this push would be
much stronger.



If Stalin were driving deep into Germany, German forces would be rushed
into Germany. I would expect that the Allies would find it relatively easy
to get back into France.



Any serious extension of the war in Europe would mean the atomic bomb
would be used in Europe.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

"SolomonW" wrote in message
news:125isab791pnf.rq3mbj6kq81b$.dlg@40tude.net...

Any serious extension of the war in Europe would mean the atomic bomb
would be used in Europe.

Which is probably why Stalin decided not to go through with it. According to Sergei Khrushchev, daddy Nikita had told him that Uncle Joe had considered
it, but changed his mind after being informed about the Manhattan Project by Klaus Fuchs and company. The prospect of Moscow being nuked was enough to
give him pause...

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 12:22:51 -0500, Byker wrote:

"SolomonW" wrote in message news:125isab791pnf.rq3mbj6kq81b$.dlg@40tude.net...

Any serious extension of the war in Europe would mean the atomic bomb
would be used in Europe.

Which is probably why Stalin decided not to go through with it. According to Sergei Khrushchev, daddy Nikita had told him that Uncle Joe had considered it, but changed his mind after being informed about the Manhattan Project by Klaus Fuchs and company. The prospect of Moscow being nuked was enough to give him pause...

I have heard this story before, I am not so sure it happened the offical position of the USSR at that time was that nuclear bombs changed little.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

On 06/08/2019 09:23, SolomonW wrote:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 12:22:51 -0500, Byker wrote:

"SolomonW" wrote in message
news:125isab791pnf.rq3mbj6kq81b$.dlg@40tude.net...

Any serious extension of the war in Europe would mean the atomic bomb
would be used in Europe.

Which is probably why Stalin decided not to go through with it. According to >> Sergei Khrushchev, daddy Nikita had told him that Uncle Joe had considered >> it, but changed his mind after being informed about the Manhattan Project by >> Klaus Fuchs and company. The prospect of Moscow being nuked was enough to
give him pause...

I have heard this story before, I am not so sure it happened the offical position of the USSR at that time was that nuclear bombs changed little.

Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those
weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:15:34 +0100, Andrew Swallow wrote:

On 06/08/2019 09:23, SolomonW wrote:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 12:22:51 -0500, Byker wrote:

"SolomonW" wrote in message
news:125isab791pnf.rq3mbj6kq81b$.dlg@40tude.net...

Any serious extension of the war in Europe would mean the atomic bomb
would be used in Europe.

Which is probably why Stalin decided not to go through with it. According to
Sergei Khrushchev, daddy Nikita had told him that Uncle Joe had considered >>> it, but changed his mind after being informed about the Manhattan Project by
Klaus Fuchs and company. The prospect of Moscow being nuked was enough to >>> give him pause...

I have heard this story before, I am not so sure it happened the offical
position of the USSR at that time was that nuclear bombs changed little.

Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those
weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.

The atomic bombing of Japan would be a better example to them.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com> on Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:37:11 +1000 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:

Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those
weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.

The atomic bombing of Japan would be a better example to them.

Objectively, what is the difference?

I recall two photograph of a destroyed urban areas. One was
Hiroshima in 1945, the other was Seoul in 1951. "Which one was the
one more destroyed?"

OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese
surrender, would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would
rendezvous over Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air
Force could not intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do
but ,,,
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:11:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those
weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.

The atomic bombing of Japan would be a better example to them.

Objectively, what is the difference?

I recall two photograph of a destroyed urban areas. One was
Hiroshima in 1945, the other was Seoul in 1951. "Which one was the
one more destroyed?"

I would imagine Seoul was in even worse shape in 1953 - nothing like
being capture by NK/Chinese troops - except having it happen twice

OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese
surrender, would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would >rendezvous over Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air
Force could not intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do
but ,,,

Would love a cite on that one
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> on Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:04:54 -0700
typed in soc.history.what-if the following:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:11:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those >>>> weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.

The atomic bombing of Japan would be a better example to them.

Objectively, what is the difference?

I recall two photograph of a destroyed urban areas. One was >>Hiroshima in 1945, the other was Seoul in 1951. "Which one was the
one more destroyed?"

I would imagine Seoul was in even worse shape in 1953 - nothing like
being capture by NK/Chinese troops - except having it happen twice

OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese
surrender, would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would >>rendezvous over Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air >>Force could not intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do
but ,,,

Would love a cite on that one

"So would I." I read voraciously and rarely if ever took notes.
"It was in a green book, towards the back half..." doesn't really
help.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait, several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message news:pguale94s9it5vsj7ksifq822m1afs85f0@4ax.com...

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> on Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:04:54 -0700
typed in soc.history.what-if the following:

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:11:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

Possibly the destruction of Dresden was a sufficient deterrent. Those >>>>> weak and degenerate capitalists could kill.

The atomic bombing of Japan would be a better example to them.

Objectively, what is the difference?

I recall two photograph of a destroyed urban areas. One was Hiroshima
in 1945, the other was Seoul in 1951. "Which one was the one more
destroyed?"

I would imagine Seoul was in even worse shape in 1953 - nothing like being >>capture by NK/Chinese troops - except having it happen twice

OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese surrender,
would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would rendezvous over
Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air Force could not
intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do but ,,,

Would love a cite on that one

"So would I." I read voraciously and rarely if ever took notes.
"It was in a green book, towards the back half..." doesn't really help.

"There was a time in the 1950s when we could have won a war against Russia.
It would have cost us essentially the accident rate of the flying time,
because their defenses were pretty weak. One time in the 1950s we flew all
of the reconnaissance aircraft that SAC possessed over Vladivostok at high noon. Two reconnaissance airplanes saw MiGs, but there were no interceptions made. It was well planned, toorCocrisscrossing paths of all the reconnaissance airplanes. Each target was hit by at least two, and usually three, reconnaissance airplanes to make sure we got pictures of it. We practically mapped the place up there with no resistance at all. We could have launched bombing attacks, planned and executed just as well, at that time." https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/06/19/the-general-and-world-war-iii

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

"Dean Markley" wrote in message news:d237d437-0c6a-4e97-ba23-589914565782@googlegroups.com...

Maybe you ought to do a little more library research instead of YouTube.

I did. Source: "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner"
by Daniel Ellsberg. You'll find the info in Chapter 16, "Killing a Nation,"
p. 266-67.

The library got it in one week after it was published: https://www.amazon.com/Doomsday-Machine-Confessions-Nuclear-Planner/dp/1608196704

Stalin knew very well that the US hadn't begun serial production of atomic bombs.

Source?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

"So would I." I read voraciously and rarely if ever took notes.
"It was in a green book, towards the back half..." doesn't really
help.

"|His mind|s eye sees them quoted on the bottom third of a
right-hand page in a (possibly) olive-bound book he read at
least five years ago.#

Edward Gorey: _The Unstrung Harp, or, Mr. Earbrass Writes A Novel_
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdos.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 03:14:10 -0500, tRudy Crayola
<Meth@anphetamine.net> wrote:

Stalin knew very well that the US hadn't begun serial production of
atomic bombs.

Source?

Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman's white house. Where else? And then >along came the Rosenberg's and other fellow travelers. The Democrats
have never been loyal to America.

Oh come on - I'm no fan of the Democrats but you simply cannot blame
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on Hillary Clinton and AOC.

You going to blame them for Breckinridge and Douglas (who you will
recall were the two Democrats for fought Lincoln in 1860) next?

I don't like either of the aforementioned ladies but you are
redefining the word "stretch"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: soc.history.what-if

The Horny Goat wrote:

OTOH, I recall reading that Gen LeMay, after the Japanese
surrender, would hold "navigation exercises", where his B29s would >rendezvous over Vladivostok or other Soviet city. Because the Red Air >Force could not intercept them at altitude. Not a nice thing to do
but ,,,

Would love a cite on that one

[t]here was a time in the 1950s when we could have won a war
against Russia. It would have cost us essentially the accident
rate of the flying time, because their defenses were pretty
weak. One time in the 1950s we flew all of the reconnaissance
aircraft that SAC possessed over Vladivostok at high noon ... We
could have launched bombing attacks, planned and executed just as
well, at that time.

rCoLeMay, 1988 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan#Prevention_versus_preemption>
--
geo:37.783333,-122.416667
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2