I just think that, had the necessary resources been comitted, the U.S could have ousted the Soviet Union, regardless of its enormous army. Nothing, not even five million soldiers, can keep an atom from splitting. Pollux this is the third time that you have been told this, the US was not a major atomic power, the US would not have been able to attack the USSR with nuclear weapons well into the 1950's with the B-47 bomber, and B-36. The US' B-29's simply did not have the range to attack Moscow, or Leningrad, and surely not anything beyond the Urals. The Soviets would have invaded Western Europe before the US would have had bombs ready. It's not contested really, the USSR was huge, with 5 million men, with thousands of tanks, against a relatively small allied force in France and Germany. Odd, they seemed to make it to Berlin okay. I suggest you look at a map of Europe please... Much of that Industrial Growth occured in response to Hitler's invasion, to modernize the country. LOL! What? The USSR was industrializing at an enormously fast rate, ever since Stalin took power in 1928 the USSR was developing heavy industry, in 1939 the USSR had a GDP larger then Nazi Germany. Yes, it was under Stalin, but it may not have happened had World War 1 been averted. You are right that it wouldn't have happened, the Czars would have probably been in power if WWI didn't happen. Sources? I'm all ears. The US wouldn't have been spurred by the large debts owed to her by the UK and France, the US became the world's largest creditor, the US became a economic hot spot because of the roaring 20's which was a rebellion to the WWI, and pre-war attitude, wait until you get along in high school... I didn't say backward. I said backwater. Big economy does not equal invincible economy. No shit! Obviously not, but it gave the US the distinct advantage over the UK which was the superpower at the time. The US' industrial power was not to be matched past WWI, a big economy that produces arms is an invincible economy.
Louisiana was under federal control by 1864 and had a Reconstruction governor in place. Lincoln didn't have to placate him. Lincoln could have only tried to give blacks suffrage either through an amendment, which wouldn't come until 1870, or try and force the states to guarantee black suffrage in their new constitutions, but if he was going to get them back into the Union, antaganizing them was risky, and his main goal was to get them back in as painlessly as possible. Yes, they had to write and address him directly.
Alan Brooke was the White Raja in Borneo, right? When he was still a teenager he engaged in tribal warfare and whatnot?
Winston Chruchill's military advisor. Had quite a carrer in the armed forces. Directed the Midland Bank I believe after retiring from the millitary.
greatest men all of ya, i think you're not being realistic enough. jesus christ? no i think st paul is greater cos he "promoted" him Prophet Mohammed is the greatest of all time. see (http://www.jamaat.net/hart/introtop100.html):cool:
ATATURK great military mind who kicked the ass of England, France, Italy and Greece founder of a repuclic and last but not least, advocate of peace '"peace at home peace in the world"
Another was Lucius Cornelius Sulla, appointed dictator of Rome in 82 BC by the senate and reformed the government to give control back to the senate. He reduced the power of the Tribunes and limited the power of the assemblies to pass or veto laws. After two years he stepped down as dictator (stunning Rome) and stood for consul. After his Consulship, he retired completely from political life. He died after a short illness in 78 BC. Also not a bad nomination for great men. He was a monster but a great military man who studied under the tutelage of Gaius Marius. He was the first consul to march on Rome (twice) and regretted sparing Julius Caesars life during his dictatorship. He set the precedent that allowed Caesars dictatorship and this eventually proved the undoing for the Roman Republic. Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
In that case the moderators should follow the rule of closing all threads after they have been dormant for a certain period. Since they don't do that, apparently it is not a rule, much less a commandment. BTW, "commit" should be in the infinitive form in that sentence, not the second person, since it is the object of the auxiliary verb "shalt": "Thou shalt not commit..." Furthermore, "commiteth" is the archaic third person, not second person. You presumably meant "commitest." Which would still be wrong of course, but it would only be one error instead of two. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!