Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 1rudeboy
Laz pointed that out- I agree that I was needlessly vague in a manner that could easily be read the wrong way. I changed the text on my web page to be a bit more clear.

Thanks, and I never mind constructive criticism.

208 posted on 09/27/2001 8:37:00 AM PDT by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies ]


To: Hugh Akston
It's a common misconception that the Soviet Union did not have any warm-water ports, probably arising from their experiences in WW2, when the only functional ports on the Eastern Front were above the Artic Circle (Murmansk and Arkhangel'sk). Another possible source of the misconception was the prevailing (and correct) U.S. Naval North Atlantic strategy of defending against a Soviet naval surge by defending gaps (Norway-UK, Greenland-Iceland-UK, even the Denmark Straight). This strategy left the impression that the Soviets were land-locked, when in reality, the Soviet Union merely was geographically unsuited for naval operations.

In any case, Soviet-era warm-water ports (not including the Pacific or the Black Sea) included Kaliningrad (Kaliningrad Oblast), Klaipeda (Lithuania), Riga (Latvia), and possibly Tallinn (Estonia). Note that, to this day, Kaliningrad remains the HQ of the Russian Baltic Fleet. (Although Kaliningrad itself is geographically separated from the Russian Federation).

Happy to help . . . I didn't read the comments on this thread, so maybe someone else had already pointed this out to you . . . and I'm happy that you believe in constructive criticism.

211 posted on 09/27/2001 9:02:33 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson