Posted on 03/16/2008 10:37:34 AM PDT by Alouette
Thank you, you have posted the facts. Some people like spanalot aren’t interested in facts, the truth is what they want it to be.
“You are totally out to lunch, you don’t know anything.”
You russophiles stick out like a sore thumb - whats it like knowing the lies you have been getting away with for 50 years are now falling apart.
Re: the B-24, it had a range of 3000 miles and could easily accomodate the “Little Boy” which weighed 8000 lbs. The B-24 had a ceiling of 28000 ft - it bit too high to send the donkeys that the Russians at the end of the war.
Hey Tovarich, how about these facts about the godless and most ruthless genocidists of all time:
http://www.archives.gov.ua/Sections/Famine/photos.php
What part of “The Russians killed 100 million in the last century” do you know understand.
I re read, but willingly accept your statement as to your meaning. I beg your pardon.
You are seriously deranged. I am no 'russophile', but you are a nut.
Not exactly. The B-24 did have a maximum carry capacity of 20k lbs, but that was distributed weight throughout the entire bomb bay section. The production B-24s (until post Korea T-14 carrying models) were not able to accommodate a single 8900 lb bomb that was over ten feet long. The structure within the Enola Gay was retrofitted to accommodate and distribute the load on the airframe. The bomb bay doors were also replaced. Most notably, the Enola Gay was part of the first production models of the B-29 that had a 'silver plate' modification. (Silver plate modification was factory, bomb bay modifications and gun removal (size consideration) were done in Guam to prevent any leaking of information about the size of the potential bombs.)
The Enola Gay rolled off the factory line in May 45 and was undergoing special modifications up until July when it started practice runs. That was really down to the wire. T his wasn't something that could have been done with any off the line plane we had.
Let me suggest some real history here, as opposed to fantasy history:
The decision on precisely where US forces in Europe were to go may have been Eisenhower's, but the configuration of post-war Europe had already been decided by Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin. So even if Ike sent allied forces on to Berlin, he would only have had to immediately withdraw them again.
And in the spring of 1945, the real threat appeared to be coming from southern Germany and Austria. The Nazis were said to have built underground redoubts and were planning to hold out there. That's why Ike went south.
As for starting another war, in May 1945, against the Russians — how can I say this politely enough to get past our ever-vigilant moderator? Sorry, I can't. But you know what I think of that idea, right?
“It really boggles my mind how some people are so willing to waste American lives for no good reason.”
I like your ideas. And here’s what’s most curious:
those same people, who are here telling us the US should have nuked the Soviets (!) in 1945, while they were still our allies (!), and preparing to deliver the final blow to Japan (yes, some claim it was the Soviet invasion of Japan in August 1945 that really caused Japan to surrender, not America’s pathetic little bombs (!)) —
Those same people today tell us the US must retreat into isolationism in the face of Islamic terrorism.
Go figure...
” I am no ‘russophile’”
I was being polite - because anyone who tries to argue that there were no commies at Los Alamos is as deranged as Duranty.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/meade.html
“The B-24 did have a maximum carry capacity of 20k lbs, but that was distributed weight throughout the entire bomb bay section.”
Big deal - you put in some reinforcing stringers.
Boy - you guys are really reaching trying to save the motherland.
“So even if Ike sent allied forces on to Berlin, he would only have had to immediately withdraw them again.”
That is one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard.
“the Soviets (!) in 1945, while they were still our allies “
Nice Try Tovarich.
You seem to forget that Russia started WWII by invading our ally, Poland.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkP58FsQGls&feature=related
BWAHAHAHAHA -
“Those same people today tell us the US must retreat into isolationism in the face of Islamic terrorism.”
I’m glad you mentioned the middle east.
So Tovarich, tell us of the wonderful things your Kremlin has done for us in Syria - or Lebanon - or Iran.
The Red Army lost over 100,000 men on the final assualt on the pile of rubble formally known as Berlin.
I guess you would rather that had been 100,000 dead Americans.
Eisenhower made the correct decision.
No trying to 'save the motherland'; history is history. Just making sure that there isn't some sort of Bolshevik-esque rewriting of history based on speculative what-ifs instead of the facts.
“Utter ignorance and and idiocy” seem, somehow, insufficient in this instance.
Do not put words in my mouth. Especially vile words like that. I was speaking strictly about his decisions and political shenanigans regarding the Bulge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.