narkive is for sale. (interested) / (dismiss)
Discussion:
Interesting Quora - If D Day had failed.
(too old to reply)
Byker
2019-08-03 20:05:05 UTC
Permalink
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...
SolomonW
2019-08-04 03:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
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.
Post by Byker
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.
Byker
2019-08-04 17:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
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...
SolomonW
2019-08-06 08:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
Post by SolomonW
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.
Andrew Swallow
2019-08-06 12:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
Post by SolomonW
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.
SolomonW
2019-08-06 13:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by SolomonW
Post by Byker
Post by SolomonW
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.
Byker
2019-08-13 23:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Andrew Swallow
Post by SolomonW
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.
Also, Stalin could only guess if the bomb had gone into serial production,
like the nonexistent "sausages" Nikita Khrushchev would boast about years
later. The notion of A-bombs coming off an assembly line must've caused him
more than a few sleepless nights.

And he had good reason to be worried. Just two weeks after the Japanese
surrender, General Leslie Groves was handed a document identifying for
possible future atomic attack fifteen "key Soviet cities," headed by Moscow,
and twenty-five "leading Soviet cities," including Leningrad, and specifying
the number of atomic bombs needed to destroy each (Moscow and Leningrad
would require six apiece).

Trouble was, the U.S. didn't have six A-bombs in 1945. A year after Trinity,
there were a total of nine bombs in the inventory (two were used in the
Bikini tests). The first official war plan in 1947 called for hitting
twenty-four Soviet cities with thirty-four bombs, but there were only
thirteen bombs in the U.S. arsenal, and only seven were complete weapons.
The war planners didn't know that because it was super-secret. When
President Harry Truman found out he was outraged that it was so small.

Until 1948 all the weapons were "hand-tooled," considered as "laboratory
weapons." The scarcity of fissionable material prompted an international
search for high-grade uranium.

Check out the "handy-dandy" targets charts: https://tinyurl.com/y78sgjeb
(That's it, blame it ALL on those nasty-ass Americans).


Mao quickly faced intense hostility from the West, particularly the United
States, which threatened nuclear strikes against China. After North Korea
invaded South Korea in June 1950, Washington intervened in support of the
South, while Beijing fought in support of the North. President Harry S.
Truman subsequently ordered ten nuclear-armed B-29s to the Pacific fleet as
his government seriously considered a nuclear strike. One proponent of
nuclear action, General Curtis LeMay, argued in 1954, “I would drop a few
bombs in proper places like China, Manchuria and Southeastern Russia. In
those ‘poker games,’ such as Korea and Indo-China, we... have never raised
the ante -- we have always just called the bet. We ought to try raising
sometime.”
Byker
2019-08-15 17:20:22 UTC
Permalink
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?
tRudy Crayola
2019-08-16 08:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Byker
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.
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?
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.
--
Rudy's Nut & Fruit farm- Sacramento
The Horny Goat
2019-08-16 15:10:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 03:14:10 -0500, tRudy Crayola
Post by tRudy Crayola
Post by Byker
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"
pyotr filipivich
2019-08-14 15:11:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by SolomonW
Post by Andrew Swallow
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?
The Horny Goat
2019-08-15 14:04:54 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:11:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
Post by Andrew Swallow
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
Post by pyotr filipivich
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
pyotr filipivich
2019-08-15 15:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:11:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
Post by Andrew Swallow
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
Post by pyotr filipivich
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.
Byker
2019-08-15 16:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 08:11:06 -0700, pyotr filipivich
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by SolomonW
Post by Andrew Swallow
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
Post by pyotr filipivich
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, too—crisscrossing 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
Rich Rostrom
2019-08-15 23:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
"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.
"³His mind¹s 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.²

Edward Gorey: _The Unstrung Harp, or, Mr. Earbrass Writes A Novel_
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Yeechang Lee
2019-08-23 08:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by pyotr filipivich
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.

—LeMay, 1988
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan#Prevention_versus_preemption>
--
geo:37.783333,-122.416667
Byker
2019-08-05 17:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Stalins forces were exhausted by the time they reached Berlin. Possibly
they might have taken more of Germany but there's no way they would have
reached the English Channel. The supply lines were incredibly extended by
May 1945. And the Soviets did not have infinite resources.
And besides, Soviet forces were needed in the East to take on the
Japanese...
Loading...