3 ms·
I agree that it is well worth studying, but with the realization that much of what happened there, and afterwards, was determined by the realities of the strate
by mannykannot 7y ago
I agree that it is well worth studying, but with the realization that much of what happened there, and afterwards, was determined by the realities of the strategic situation. For example, Stalin was going to occupy eastern Europe regardless of what transpired in Yalta.
- Spooky23 7y agoIt’s more an example of the fog of war and timing. If the Germans collapsed a few months later or the trinity test had happened earlier, the US would have had the opportunity for a lasting victory instead of a stalemate. Once available, the US was very willing to use its monopoly to wave the baton of atomic destruction. The constraints of finishing off Japan and the possibility of open war with the Soviets would have been very different.
- JadeNB 7y ago> … the US would have had the opportunity for a lasting victory instead of a stalemate. I am sure I'm missing the point, but the US (together with the other allies) did achieve a lasting victory. It surely wasn't a theoretically optimal victory, but it was unquestionably lasting (for about 70 years, apparently). Am I factually wrong, did I misinterpret your meaning, or is it something else?